Re: [tcpm] Thank you for the QUIC session in tcpm

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Praveen,
>
> The point you're raising -- that we've lost the ack clock after an RTO -- is
> a reasonable point. My argument is that with pacing, cwnd reduction is
> unwarranted because in the extreme case, this collapses to restart after
> idle, where sending at cwnd with pacing is reasonable
I agree w/ Jana as well - the most generic way to treat burst due to
prior_inflight << cwnd is pacing. With QUIC's approach, when RTO
fires, cwnd remains unchanged until the ACK of the first
retransmission (i.e. a probe packet) comes back. Therefore the delay
is one RTT and the potential damage is an additional cwnd-worth of
burst.

Yes the worst case is more aggressive, and it can be too much for DC
incast case if pacing isn't supported - one idea is to selective
enable that if RTT variance is
very large vs RTT.

>
> The draft does not say that a sender should reduce the cwnd if it is not
> pacing, which we should add. Does that make sense?
>
> - jana
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:34 AM Praveen Balasubramanian
> <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yuchung I brought that difference up in an email to the quic wg earlier
>> this week.
>>
>> In app send limited case, inflight could be very small compared to cwnd.
>> So in QUIC there is potential to send a burst out after a long idle period
>> (with outstanding data) where TCP wouldn't. The draft claims this is okay to
>> do because RTO may have been a result of RTT increase instead of loss. Is
>> there data to suggest on which side we should err? i.e. data on what are the
>> chances that an RTO is due to an RTT increase versus loss.
>>
>> Do you see any safety concerns with delayed reduction of cwnd in case
>> where the RTO is not spurious?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yuchung Cheng
>> Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 4:38 PM
>> To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
>> Cc: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>; tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Thank you for the QUIC session in tcpm
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I just wanted to thank Jana for explaining QUIC loss recovery to us (and
>> > QUIC CC as far as it goes).
>> > And thank you Jana, Ian, the chairs of both WGs (and anyone else
>> > involved) for setting it up.
>> >
>> > If one is not full-time on QUIC, it's very difficult to keep up with all
>> > the changes. But now we have a checkpoint to start from, I feel I will not
>> > be wasting people's time if I try to get involved - at least I only might
>> > say something un-QUIC occasionally, rather than nearly always. This has
>> > allowed people who understand how TCP cold be improved to help with QUIC,
>> > when working on QUIC isn't their day job.
>> >
>> > Again, Thank you.
>> I like particularly that QUIC only reduces cwnd to 1 after the loss is
>> confirmed not upon RTO fires. It should be very feasible for TCP (at least
>> Linux) w/ TCP timestamps. It'll save a lot of spurious cwnd reductions!
>>
>> Also IMHO TCP w/ quality timestamps are almost as good as QUIC pkt-ids.
>> Google internally uses usec. We wish we could upstream it but RFC needs to
>> be updated.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > Bob Briscoe
>> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbobbriscoe.net%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Cf0911eeb74d7446f424508d645dbb779%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773207316711149&amp;sdata=0pt6YfpYOaF%2B5IWEKY3LMj1idEnYbApqUvWzhtLa5qE%3D&amp;reserved=0
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > tcpm mailing list
>> > tcpm@ietf.org
>> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i
>> > etf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microso
>> > ft.com%7Cf0911eeb74d7446f424508d645dbb779%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd0
>> > 11db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773207316711149&amp;sdata=K667a3IQG4rarQ%2FOfAlyhK
>> > QQ05Cea421rgb64DlEMvs%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Cf0911eeb74d7446f424508d645dbb779%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773207316711149&amp;sdata=K667a3IQG4rarQ%2FOfAlyhKQQ05Cea421rgb64DlEMvs%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm