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

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

Praveen,

I think that's a deployment configuration question... you're right to note
that BBR requires pacing, but I don't think the solution here is
necessarily to build pacing into the transport. It's certainly useful to
build it in as a safeguard in case the deployment environment does not
implement pacing, but I think it still is useful to describe and implement
controllers for environments that implement pacing.

- jana


On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:35 AM Praveen Balasubramanian <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Yuchung this might be worth experimenting with and getting more data on.
> Maybe there should be some reaction to an unconfirmed RTO even if it is not
> reduction all the way to LW? I like Jana's suggestion that the
> implementation SHOULD drop the cwnd even for unconfirmed RTO if not pacing.
>
> I checked the latest draft and pacing is a RECOMMENDED. I am noticing that
> transport algorithms in Linux and in QUIC are evolving assuming pacing
> which is a function usually implemented and configured outside of the
> transport. So the transport is potentially making an assumption which may
> result in safety issues. For example BBR congestion control may not work
> very well if pacing was disabled or misconfigured? I don’t know of any
> robust solution to this other than build pacing into the transport itself.
> Pacing is also very challenging for low latency flows because of lack of
> support for fine grained timers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:37 AM
> To: Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Praveen Balasubramanian <[e-mail]>; Bob Briscoe <
> [e-mail]>; Ian Swett <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Thank you for the QUIC session in tcpm
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]> 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=[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Yuchung Cheng
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 4:38 PM
> >> To: Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Ian Swett <[e-mail]>; tcpm IETF list <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Thank you for the QUIC session in tcpm
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> 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%2Fbob
> >> > briscoe.net%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7C3c4d22866
> >> > 8444691c16808d648bd2ce9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%
> >> > 7C636776374678321324&amp;sdata=T%2BWTEc42VC%2Bz%2BsmMFyjlm37hmAwfee
> >> > buPcuMYlVhgDY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > tcpm mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> >> > w.i
> >> > etf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40micr
> >> > oso
> >> > ft.com%7Cf0911eeb74d7446f424508d645dbb779%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> >> > cd0
> >> > 11db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773207316711149&amp;sdata=K667a3IQG4rarQ%2FOfAl
> >> > yhK
> >> > QQ05Cea421rgb64DlEMvs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tcpm mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >>
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> >> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40micro
> >> soft.com%7C3c4d228668444691c16808d648bd2ce9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> >> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636776374678321324&amp;sdata=33WxKh5c6qL4ln5jerpx
> >> Rhytfrj1iTK284pEqv5fWKY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tcpm mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> >> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40micro
> >> soft.com%7C3c4d228668444691c16808d648bd2ce9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> >> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636776374678321324&amp;sdata=33WxKh5c6qL4ln5jerpx
> >> Rhytfrj1iTK284pEqv5fWKY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>