Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8312 (5907)
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Fri, 15 November 2019 19:54 UTC
Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.com>
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 F2987120951 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:54:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 zyyGYL3hSEaU for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:54:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (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 9F7BC12093A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:54:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id l14so9004594oti.10 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:54:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y/rx2rSO9FCdCT2WzhGifssgjaoHof3iQ5ZD1tlJtP4=; b=ANb3c7Y4gJO4hxM1wrcRmSMLiLU2Z8G01YzqtpYaTHxvqwIY2JqoFulqy6by1nzo+U PlCh/tJTddwEGUO9K+BlR4MOwA88v8W6Is1ibGmpDtmb1rG/9+SAneMf8YW8U+xRF3fi lEvqHkR2C6N4S6J5RsR5NblYP45HPP/OrNLA3reyVJtLF0C+fw59sWmQG0ealiQv+mLv ZRoJlpkFasqZ8Cz2H/nkiSwaoXlxxj61kJOqaySJBwMYwsYSuZWr1OzOeX3WhERupeDF 9DQej0szePORBFkyFDZIww53M3Ed9cvJrcR1bVEJSrosD+WQl4ZXd8ZneEZR4fKaFWZm UNzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y/rx2rSO9FCdCT2WzhGifssgjaoHof3iQ5ZD1tlJtP4=; b=ZIRg7qrwSIy22mK7/sj2SfHTDEhMsmqEQHqTSeqUX4A2O3weemAHWwejDAMVPwimsF RnEUXHaqaGD2yLA3woA6iV5T74dWo4O6M9VjWRkQ0Bh26ONfdrq2uJoXh7Eqyyl13gsm HFkBp7JEng3EAu1jU5dEUi/CRw1oN3CqqpXd0F2Tgnkv0rFrmTwhIXCLiS1giLpa3W9F ZWlaXQjhUSjKg88Ckj0Fv3lG2cWWIOn1jHzkKYV/Q/FPhrB8Cbd5gjt0zmVtLl5As+Aj BcR32ZtKMvsQ2sF5rQ63rAlWKQETepGzzxkg1/F6/lEku4AYtVREQSGdG0/LlR05C6wl yzqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUOkggLpLz90PPWtSk5TUDVdmPg7QZsQjBO1norlMTXjlD2sVnd PYKj39H2HT3ATe9MZ9fzkobZ/RR+MvwUJ+1K/0Grpw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwWK9UTHUoRHWl1T7cIZp5NG6DFIeW61oumf/bXE2bchlwKLovApbQe0i+4XSImRxS1CcaWMIb8iFNY66memz0=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1b3:: with SMTP id e48mr13089966ote.341.1573847668148; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:54:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191114020710.3359AF406D8@rfc-editor.org> <CADVnQynZPCXyzbh88ZhOkm851xQqyNoe_4sfcbz8cmQM2_=x7A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQynZPCXyzbh88ZhOkm851xQqyNoe_4sfcbz8cmQM2_=x7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:54:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CADVnQynapHH=qs=FChCWestO8R=E5PYcRO78jBvs-w28n0fqtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rhee@ncsu.edu, Lisong Xu <xu@unl.edu>, Sangtae Ha <sangtae.ha@colorado.edu>, alexander.zimmermann@rwth-aachen.de, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Richard Scheffenegger <rs.ietf@gmx.at>, ietf@kuehlewind.net, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, "Scharf, Michael" <michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, nsd.ietf@gmail.com, tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>, Elliott Ecton <elliott.ecton@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/ca9h8RHqt8hRO3R_U1_5OKYgCAk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 13:45:09 -0800
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8312 (5907)
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:54:34 -0000
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:53 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM RFC Errata System > <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8312, > > "CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5907 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Elliott Ecton <elliott.ecton@netpp.com> > > > > Section: 5.1 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > +--------+----------+-----------+------------+-----------+----------+ > > | Loss | Average | Average | CUBIC | CUBIC | CUBIC | > > | Rate P | TCP W | HSTCP W | (C=0.04) | (C=0.4) | (C=4) | > > +--------+----------+-----------+------------+-----------+----------+ > > | 10^-2 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | > > | 10^-3 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 59 | > > | 10^-4 | 120 | 263 | 120 | 187 | 333 | > > | 10^-5 | 379 | 1795 | 593 | 1054 | 1874 | > > | 10^-6 | 1200 | 12279 | 3332 | 5926 | 10538 | > > | 10^-7 | 3795 | 83981 | 18740 | 33325 | 59261 | > > | 10^-8 | 12000 | 574356 | 105383 | 187400 | 333250 | > > +--------+----------+-----------+------------+-----------+----------+ > > > > Table 1 > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > +--------+----------+-----------+------------+-----------+----------+ > > | Loss | Average | Average | CUBIC | CUBIC | CUBIC | > > | Rate P | TCP W | HSTCP W | (C=0.04) | (C=0.4) | (C=4) | > > +--------+----------+-----------+------------+-----------+----------+ > > | 10^-2 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 11 | > > | 10^-3 | 38 | 38 | 19 | 33 | 59 | > > | 10^-4 | 120 | 263 | 120 | 187 | 333 | > > | 10^-5 | 379 | 1795 | 593 | 1054 | 1874 | > > | 10^-6 | 1200 | 12279 | 3332 | 5926 | 10538 | > > | 10^-7 | 3795 | 83981 | 18740 | 33325 | 59261 | > > | 10^-8 | 12000 | 574356 | 105383 | 187400 | 333250 | > > +--------+----------+-----------+------------+-----------+----------+ > > > > Table 1 > > > > Notes > > ----- > > The CUBIC average window sizes for 10^2 and 10^3 are incorrect in the original text using expression 6. > > I strongly suspect that the original text is correct. > > Note that the proposed edit would cause the average congestion window > size of CUBIC to be below that of "TCP W", the Reno [RFC5681] window, > in the cases with loss rates of 10^-2 and 10^-3. But as mentioned in > section 4.2. "TCP-Friendly Region", where the native CUBIC curve > computation produces a target congestion window that is lower than the > congestion window Reno would use, the CUBIC algorithm instead uses the > Reno target congestion window. So the average congestion window size > of CUBIC should not be below that of Reno. I believe that is why in > the original table the average congestion window for "TCP W" and CUBIC > match in cases with loss rates of 10^-2 and 10^-3 and with CUBIC using > C=0.04 or C=0.4. > > Are there tests or simulations showing CUBIC achieving a lower > congestion window in these cases with loss rates of 10^-2 and 10^-3? > > best, > neal I got a bounce from my "reply-all". It seems there was a typo in the e-mail address of the report, and it should have been: Elliott Ecton <elliott.ecton@netapp.com> ...rather than: Elliott Ecton <elliott.ecton@netpp.com> I am following up to make sure the elliott.ecton@netapp.com address has the reply and the thread has the correct e-mail address. best, neal
- [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8312 (5907) RFC Errata System
- Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8312 (5… Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8312 (5… Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8312 (5… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8312 (5… Mirja Kuehlewind