Re: [tcpm] On Sender Control of Delayed Acks in TCP

Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Sat, 02 May 2020 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E93E3A0B18 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 May 2020 01:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3FL2Ni_KpmUr for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 May 2020 01:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9AD83A0B17 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 May 2020 01:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id 0428n2NC007149; Sat, 2 May 2020 10:49:02 +0200
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529B31D53C1; Sat, 2 May 2020 10:49:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 83.53.208.128 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Sat, 2 May 2020 10:49:02 +0200
Message-ID: <ac8bc2de8f91a2c14d1e857a6ebb26e7.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQy=wPUx62y7VNqjSPP+snKX4vVvK5q=qqYb1j+0nGrtezQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <683902e8-a2af-cfb7-ffd0-c5c5742e5bd5@gmx.at> <CADVnQykY3OqXy=RcEfa-OpfK2x=W5_FTrdrx7PvKuqgEt92uNw@mail.gmail.com> <7d145f1203f6344b92f6f8aa11a78239.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <CADVnQy=wPUx62y7VNqjSPP+snKX4vVvK5q=qqYb1j+0nGrtezQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 10:49:02 +0200
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Cc: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at dash
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Delayed for 23:52:30 by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Sat, 02 May 2020 10:49:02 +0200 (CEST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/OlHjbLuquYYe7twVPuZBHqbBph8>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] On Sender Control of Delayed Acks in TCP
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 08:49:57 -0000

Hi Neal,

>> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:03 PM Scheffenegger, Richard
>> <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Eliciting an ACK under certain circumstances, for a timely
>> continuation
>> >> of the data transmission / growth of the congestion window is a known
>> >> method to reduce network delay.
>> >>
>> >> E.g. Linux has been using the CWR flag for the purpose of sending out
>> an
>> >> immediate ACK by the receiver, since there is an increased chance of
>> a
>> >> very small cwnd when the sender had just reduced it's congestion
>> window.
>> >>
>> >> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/970486/
>> >>
>> >> and we also found latency improvements doing this when running
>> >> ECN-enabled sessions
>> >>
>> >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22670
>> >
>> > Yes, agreed.
>> >
>> > IMHO an explicit ACK-pull mechanism would be very nice for the cwnd<=1
>> > case.
>>
>> (While this question is about the solution space, I'm anyway curious...)
>> In the context of datacenter networks, would you have any suggestion or
>> preference regarding the solutions that have been mentioned so far?
>>
>> Or perhaps any particular requirement for a potential solution?
>
> Among the solutions outlined in
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gomez-tcpm-delack-suppr-reqs-00
> my first preference would be the AKP option, since that approach
> avoids burning a precious flag bit.
>
> The AKP option may be stripped by some middleboxes, but (a) as a
> performance optimization, that should be acceptable, and (b) for the
> datacenter case (where cwnd=1 is a motivating use case) this should
> not be a concern.
>
> IMHO a flag bit makes sense for a small signal that a sender might
> want to send frequently or at a high rate, but senders should not be
> trying to force immediate ACKs frequently.

Thanks a lot for the very useful feedback.

In the next draft update, we will expand the discussion of potential
solutions accordingly.

Cheers,

Carles


> best,
> neal