Re: [tcpm] [Lwip] WGLC review of draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks

"Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Wed, 05 June 2019 09:35 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 9874A12063B; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 02:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 3EYWzWf2dxCs; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 02:35:05 -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 B1235120135; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 02:35:04 -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 x559YwFL048426; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:34:58 +0200
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F09A1D53C1; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 131.111.5.141 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:34:58 +0200
Message-ID: <f27dbc582fcf1b8c39fcedf00eb653d8.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB4425FA59013C58026105671DC2320@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HE1PR07MB4425FA59013C58026105671DC2320@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:34:58 +0200
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: "Ingemar Johansson S" <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>, 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 0.100.2 at dash
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:34:58 +0200 (CEST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/RpxWjDfpqUaej1sI79oairhyY-o>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Lwip] WGLC review of draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks
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: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 09:35:06 -0000

Hi Ingemar,

Thank you very much for reviewing the draft and for your suggestions. Your
feedback is timely and very welcome.

Based on your comments, in the last revision of our document (-08) we have
added a new subsection (subsection 4.3.3) that discusses the Initial
Window setting in the context of CNNs.

Cheers,

Carles (on behalf of all authors)


> Hi
>
> I hope that I am not too late with the review.
>
> Perhaps this has been brought up earlier, and it that is the case then
> sorry
> for kicking in open doors.
>
>
>
> I have read but to not seen any mention of the initial congestion window
> size. Today the initial window in most TCP stacks is set to 10*MSS and
> this
> may well be used by Nb-IoT implementers that are unaware of default
> settings.
>
> While this is likely not an issue if he applications transmit small
> objects
> that fit in a few segments, it can become an issue with larger object
> transfers and if a burst of 14600 bytes overflows a tiny network buffer.
>
> Should this be addressed, possibly with a recommendation to adjust the
> initial window based on network constraints ?
>
>
>
> /Ingemar
>
> ==================================
>
> Ingemar Johansson  M.Sc.
>
> Master Researcher
>
>
>
> Ericsson Research
>
> Network Protocols & E2E Performance
>
> Labratoriegränd 11
>
> 971 28, Luleå, Sweden
>
> Phone +46-1071 43042
>
> SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
>
> ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
>
> www.ericsson.com
>
>
>
>                 Nothing to stop this
>
>              being the best day ever
>
>                             U2
>
> ==================================
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> Lwip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>