Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-01.txt

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at> Mon, 22 February 2021 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
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 721B73A222C; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:49:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 9LzRtWq9M5SY; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA20B3A21AF; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:48:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1614037717; bh=+G0S/zafLBi/5GqHxWOwiGP2WBp/iLFIQh8U6YXsCsc=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bL8cPhbEKnjQBVkiGVQ+ed0r2Itm6b2JEfdhFsAX+4jq8jpzmh3iABaqCpC/68GBE BtNTMVSl8k0ZUcXycDZC9AguuRSRAYHBqOPZniK/1HAP3FsxYie7VAezHRri1LvMMI 5XCDPyt30KJgkQTum9CATW+2Il2dDKsmCx0206eY=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.1.199] ([178.115.128.90]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mlf0U-1lfSER1Oss-00ilNJ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:48:37 +0100
To: tcpm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis.authors@ietf.org
References: <161403428413.22042.205772629562934735@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
Message-ID: <7e134864-a450-451a-b357-569904a1c750@gmx.at>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:48:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <161403428413.22042.205772629562934735@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:/pH5qB2Z/Pu3g9c0k3NRK8Ezz+XSgD7SHAifrVL2bjwIC1S8Xb+ 3StIOl4cN6uiPyrX/G65MoZTjT+RBPIzni1tuutDuVH++sjE+c/5VCmtiy3qp4RBVeGeNks e5OOd2Wk0FRaSj97MH2QdHPvLy6t02I8VOLY1e27OMR60uQh/4FfHtlPINpXWMKqLghC5aT RQDmMoUgejGqB4XO+7y7Q==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:bGAamuNHekw=:fkhE4IAvBdRY/oi8ekPPH0 nIYyrUd/4WGAWXX4R71zDjeCE8S9ve2DdWve/kwagNufl0YcvppiS1Ag26oAdZNSm34Zax/yD z9LNN8LxDdnqSACU/66kBNavxIBQX5W7epHMq6yCD+vYamZmNdn1WMgmcrnUineynzLvdu+99 wW5KeOQJbvU8wn2b1Z+WgQkHlnpibset5KgPURrN4bZAk76cfJTGtaCm7FZCS3pqnC6cjvR6z CRctcvsbrDIFY1KYKYzt3sOjn6MP5PB8N4RvQsxiwIQ33AmA6LJBFnGu4zGuH+x/+Fau1SJNw dHAHcsHs6RTxxDB61KXT/a1BuBL8QVhLFdKCvDpcz9m8UqiOr5/Y7io7kVg4/euUTqyOh6hOH rEElwhxZTlSljjVWSEpaNcS3XDsTDQVizPTV+sDLl+FNbLjjXYLlNRQw9MonKM/bTb3rFareM v5841pf5nXCkvPtyq/hSpkwp6F3rSIhyWtPBXm8U47xaTTkJIdWoNw4bKMsGXt/NjAHT22wOK x6X4YmzyTGe30xhurzmTjMeqxAoZWHI40jyUHZyf9gINq5bW0B5/GBl9gEM4i1oXRLyHzkes9 JpduvJGAKR+hAKMwZTU8P3mG5C03dfThQa0yehVIyOxcEPRntOUasM2zs132eEIST6LGawuOp OE4YmNcsTY8rIxOtwBrR10QgcgctVr9rKGDKixR/og6os7degkjZstrCb+NV+w09shFB3sZxw 4qovIomoi0H2zE9oUaz5TLcBMGA+7gyieoZGKGFzU3/Ok6hGZCEfrgXBj2J41Q0JybV4AIjYD fhz2k73UzcRN4T72dcjHD1KQexREPhAW9prpxbAvVhK9290e9K89MWar40JOVZFcaU/d51MxT /Q780LmwcW3d9sugLYcw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/PVyHPYO6eMZjVQ-2hddSBTkz5wU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-01.txt
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:49:17 -0000

Hi,

Nit (Freudian slip?): Section 3, 1st para has "BBR-SSRB". Guess the
hamming distance between the TLA BBR and PRR is too small :)


Also, after having worked on that code lately, I don't think I fully
agree with the wording in the statement here
        .... "recommended to use BBR-SSRB
        by default.  For all of the environments explored in earlier PRR
  ->    research, the new heuristic is consistent with the old
  ->    recommendation."

Reason being that the heuristic - as I understand it currently, before
reading further into -01 - effectively switches to PRR-CRB during the
first window after loss always (once pipe < ssthresh), and only enables
PRR-SSRB in the 2nd window, when snd.una advances again after the
retransmission(s) are delivered to the client.

The prior recommendation was to generally use PRR-SSRB, critically also
in the first window, when snd.una does not advance yet - provided pipe
was smaller than ssthresh. And by that possibly increasing cwnd already.

I guess the heuristic, as described, would never be in SSRB mode during
the first window of loss recovery - unless the criterial is extended
(e.g. advance of snd.fack [although not specified in the RFC series]
without indication of additional loss (additional holes in the scoreboard).


Also, LRD is mentioned in the text, but unless I am mistaken, RACK may
be the only variant of TCP in the RFC series, where that is specified.

Perhaps a short paragraph about the merit of the heuristic, when lost
retransmission detection is not available (and a RTO will be needed in
any case some time later) would be good. After all, assuming SACK,
successfully retransmitting as many packets during the initial loss
recovery epoch should help drive goodput up a little faster, and
minimize the number of packets that RTO needs to recover, correct?

Overall I like this 6937bis text!

Best regards,
    Richard


Am 22.02.2021 um 23:51 schrieb internet-drafts@ietf.org:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP
>          Authors         : Matt Mathis
>                            Nandita Dukkipati
>                            Yuchung Cheng
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 18
> 	Date            : 2021-02-22
>
> Abstract:
>     This document updates the experimental Proportional Rate Reduction
>     (PRR) algorithm, described RFC 6937, to standards track.  PRR
>     potentially replaces the Fast Recovery and Rate-Halving algorithms.
>     All of these algorithms regulate the amount of data sent by TCP or
>     other transport protocol during loss recovery.  PRR accurately
>     regulates the actual flight size through recovery such that at the
>     end of recovery it will be as close as possible to the ssthresh, as
>     determined by the congestion control algorithm.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-01
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-01
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-01
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>