Re: [tcpm] Linux doesn’t implement RFC3465

[Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 10:05 AM Mark Allman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > (2) Implementations that don't pace will generally be causing
> > large bursts for many different reasons anyway (data and/or ACK
> > aggregation in the network or end hosts), restart from idle,...)
> > so having a constant L does not provide enough protection from
> > bursts to justify the cost in reduced performance (in the form of
> > slower slow-start). In support of this, experience with this as
> > the default behavior in Linux TCP over the 2013-2021 period
> > suggests this works well enough in practice.
>
> I think at some point someone should put some meat on the bones of
> "suggests this works well enough in practice".
>
Good point. We could add anecdotal words on the degree of stretched ACK.

Maybe we can also cite priori discussions on ACK compression / decimation a
couple years ago in tcpm / tsvwg. Are there research papers on stretch ACK
degrees too?


> It isn't enough for linux to have implemented this.  Or, even had it
> turned on.  E.g., if L=\infinity yet receivers ACK every other
> packet then there is an effective L of 2.  We see lots of people
> saying this scenario isn't the prevalent scenario these days.  If
> that's true then it should be easy to provide a summary of
> experience with L=\infinity.
>
> This would all just seem better with some concrete experience rather
> than the quite hand wavy statements we've seen so far.
>
> allman
>