Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of RFC6937bis
"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at> Mon, 08 February 2021 21:54 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 C0E3D3A1639 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 13:54:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 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, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 HBCr33o1Ndqx for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 13:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 5D57C3A0FFD for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 13:54:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1612821279; bh=LOVCIodFafoUdROve69GkZQaiZr/UfIyyHeQcSMP2wA=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bDFShcIRqjPggbWj587G9jPB0ZBhVSt+Hp+g6Sd8tC8JUb72EOvHfH+3QTDC1uxjD UWDOjs1eOzsIVihQQT7AfdmdSiI3/3zBlV6aAr6LYmYDjGacMQlK2tj7wBLrhoS36Q z6KsyerJHeLrx9g57SsFeyYeetBX1IATDP1v8mzw=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.1.199] ([178.165.131.138]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MN5if-1lRjFD2Ebd-00J1Jd; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 22:54:38 +0100
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <CAH56bmCkmtvqTRaEC-AFd-_W1nWeE0JE9SMt=w8E5JoHvvnVtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAK044T7POu9YCU_=Gf5St-A5s8bnv0fhCuWASqD6_tz6_Hdvw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
Message-ID: <ae24e70e-098b-bf82-86e6-1c196c9331f9@gmx.at>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 22:54:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAK044T7POu9YCU_=Gf5St-A5s8bnv0fhCuWASqD6_tz6_Hdvw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jl4QG8nXLAl6vZNfVw8+W1XjhVqfM6MiueET/hTJwK+o2A01bPC z0DJXOJBG9IkrQ1nD/9EbqyhizPHSmKLA2bkwRDkpfs822HOcWRSuSGyN8dwN++n/0VXxKU 68a0J8OatEtJ3MIqEmqHakCBcOUOpnPBQiBIF/bdSjJ/DFVBtiAPQeyFIFxAAaic44YcAZn dd5kZcMb5PgBtlFN867aA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Lc4my5LvrEI=:N+JbVsg+1pBNDed9+XNBNZ RbF5N4BjTwKypSbMOpDBf2pa95TLaAoOpg9VI55qNBfX71R9wb3DiJUOR0Oxf4a1snKn+CRyL nb0lrzFnRVHrjyRiXmTrl6bIphwXi/cqIKM5Nbm13fO6sxn3D9Lgq4lMo86uNy55mXkZefokS 9rPSelqntEtoHmgwmcTJAH/deRR4SrBShz23eOSwFM85Tk6qLpLLvIRz2oMw32t1pIJQ/0rOP rP6GQ9CQhrXZtZ5F93L8RawBarHzSjOLcwsfizZnctN5Lwgk3gFPgZmmmiJ6cuowPin3uy6CH 1Rs3iNXptcq1v6bZ45eSLmudJ+F9DkVCgoSWy86G5lcgPChSX8AIX7cIu0n708X8BcwwcfxdM grp4jHhiEgBMQZlQtIRu75Rtsuqw7PbC5zSbRc5lftq6yTdinf5T1vjn+mfbm30I0eyyGPwRx SQNb4E9Tx1zyU88H7NjMQmwJPxIL8vsYwgneussyKoUsBb6eRZ9zTdczh/aZl/sYjJGJjsasP S7lqyGItn/swuVKRD9hqRAS0A8EP8zAG/DDeMMmmpHQFGJIW/3RDnZW++864E4k9L+wM9fiT+ uRaauxAu57eh0URyacVDTtJuibuC4X/6D1nLwv4TKQn7EEJQL/r0gz7l+rlyd93xj0bdPcTh1 sRpWkZaZFZYM+ntNQGt1Oo3JUa1dSCOz4kKcTBPO//XUYUFPdOrqVqyOE3YlZhfv/3YfhZ8Mj gPYk9NtqJ4ZK1s6Ei3iYjZcEY71X/AYkFyIIZRq2nUCI33PyrWEFf/bALlCkTZUt6MidrYFdK U/1btMcmjVIGKUhNdC8MkrRA/lEMfssBX2wOOh+jvarH6hf9smSGliQHySp12HvDYSLDW3N67 bolf4YF2XtIHbyLla47g==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/jNc95cGpyfQhuX2nqDx2jaNzasI>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of RFC6937bis
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, 08 Feb 2021 21:54:47 -0000
FWIW, PRR has been included in FBSD13 as default. That implementation my be a bit rough at the edges - the particular case to deal with "broken" token-bucket traffic policers mentioned by Matt using an automatic heustric is not in, and if encountered, need to be dealt with manually. Richard Am 30.11.2020 um 19:12 schrieb Yoshifumi Nishida: > Hi folks, > > This mail starts a WG adoption call for RFC6937bis draft. > As we've already seen positive supports for this work, we are not asking > people who already expressed their opinions this time. (but, if you want > to do it for some reason, please go ahead) > However, if you haven't done it yet, especially if you're against it, we > would like to encourage you to provide feedback. > > We are thinking that the intended status of the doc will be PS based on > the feedback we've seen so far. But, if you have opinions on it, please > let us know. > > Thank you so much, > -- > Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:56 PM Matt Mathis > <mattmathis=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > The authors of PRR would like to update PRR to Proposed Standard > status. This entails introducing a new document as an tcpm work item. > > *Please indicate (non) support and/or comment.* > > For more details see the tcpm meeting materials from IETF 109 > minutes: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-tcpm-00 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-tcpm-00> > slides: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mathis-tcpm-rfc6937bis-00 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mathis-tcpm-rfc6937bis-00> > > There were about four "I support this work" remarks at the mic (not > recorded in the minutes), and about as many in the Meetecho chat. > > Abridged IETF/tcpm/PRRbis slides: > -- > PRR recap (RFC6937 experimental) > PRR is a special congestion control effective only during fast recovery > > * When inflight >= ssthresh, send at loss_beta*rate_before_loss > (e.g. loss_beta = 0.5 for Reno (aka rate-halving), 0.7 for Cubic) > * When inflight < ssthresh, send at the same or twice the > delivery_rate (more later) > * Used by all congestion control modules in Linux during fast recovery > o Can be more dominant than the actual C.C. for lossy flows > that’re in fast recovery constantly (e.g. video streaming > through policers) > > -- > Current Status > > * > > PRR is widely deployed > > o > > At least three major OSs: Linux, Windows, (NetFlix) BSD > > o > > Vast majority of Web traffic for years > > * > > No changes to algorithms published in RFC 6937 > > o > > PRR-CRB - Conservative Reduction Bound - strict packet > conversion during loss recovery > > o > > PRR-SSRB - Slowstart Reduction Bound - one extra segment per > ACK during loss recovery > > * > > 2015 Heuristic to dynamically select which reduction bound > > o > > Only use PRR-SSRB when making good forward progress > > + > > ACKs that advanced snd.una and report no new losses > > o > > Resolves some pathological cases with token bucket policers > > + > > CC estimates ssthresh before it can possibly measure the > token rate > > + > > The heuristic makes the best of a bad situation > > -- > Tentative path forward > > * > > Adopt as a tcpm work item > > * > > Update the text > > o > > Normative RFC 2119 language > > o > > Add MAY use the heuristic... > > o > > Trim redundant and obsolete language > > + > > RFC 6937 repeats itself and is much longer than necessary > > + > > Focus on what an implementer needs to know > > + > > Use non-normative references to RFC 6937 for prior > measurement work, etc > > Thanks, > --MM-- > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay > > We must not tolerate intolerance; > however our response must be carefully measured: > too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling > out of control; > too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval. > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm> > > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >
- [tcpm] Introduce RFC 6937 bis (Proportional Rate … Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] Introduce RFC 6937 bis (Proportional R… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] Introduce RFC 6937 bis (Proportional R… Ian Swett
- Re: [tcpm] Introduce RFC 6937 bis (Proportional R… Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] Introduce RFC 6937 bis (Proportional R… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] Introduce RFC 6937 bis (Proportional R… Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Introduce RFC 6937 bis … Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [tcpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Introduce RFC 6937 bis … Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Introduce RFC 6937 bis … Yuchung Cheng
- [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of RFC… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Introduce RFC 6937 bis … Martin Duke
- Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of… Scheffenegger, Richard