Re: [tcpm] CUBIC rfc8312bis / WGLC Issue 2

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Markku, folks,

In my understanding, compared to Reno, Cubic makes a strong assumption that
the last cwnd which caused packet loss is more or less close to the
available bandwidth.
If this assumption is correct, it can utilize bandwidth efficiently.
However, if the assumption deviates from the actual value, it may create
more packet losses than Reno. As a result, Cubic may suffer poor
performance in this case.
I don't believe it leads to congestion collapse although b=0.7 may result
in slower convergence than Reno. But I think it's a part of design choice.
I agree 40% overshooting case is an unfortunate case, but I am not sure we
should adjust the entire design to this kind of case. At least for now.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:16 PM Markku Kojo <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Yoshi, all,
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> > I think I understand this issue, but I'm personally not sure how bad
> this is.
> > Because this looks a rather pathological case to me, also I don't think
> this can cause congestion collapse as
> > this is still multicative decrease.
>
> It is multiplicative decerase from a FlightSize (cwnd) that is double the
> available network capacity. If the decrease factor is 0.5, we end up
> sending at exactly the full rate the network allows, i.e., there is no
> unused capacity. Decrease factor 0.7 means that the flow is
> effectively unresponsive for 40% of the packets it injects after the cwnd
> decrease.
>
> If you consider a congested scenario where new flows start up
> continuously (e.g., a large number of Web users sharing a heavily
> congested bottleneck router), it resembles a situation where the flows do
> not appropriately react to congestion but keep on sending up to 40% of
> undelivered packets. Congestion collapse does not necessarily mean full
> (100%) collapse but several different degrees of congestion collapse is
> possible (pls. see the description of undelivered packets in RFC 2914).
> In this case we may see up to 40% congestion collapse because these
> undelivered packets eat up useful capacity from other users.
>
> The question to answer is: what sense does it make and what is the
> justification for a flow to inject that many packets into the network
> unnecessarily knowing that they will get dropped (or cause drops for
> other flows) with a tail-drop bottleneck router?
>
> Apologies for the strong words but for me this would be insane design.
>
> > It seems to me that this is a kind of shooting in the foot, a suboptimal
> case. However,  there are some
> > advantages in the current logic.
>
> Could you possibly elaborate?
>
> > I'm not very sure if we should sacrifice better results to address some
> rare cases. I think we will need more
> > analysis of the pros and cons for this.
>
> I don't think this could be considered a rare (or corner) case as this
> occurs potentially every time a flow starts and every time a flow
> encounters RTO with sudden congestion (the latter is very bad because
> in front of heavy congestion it is extremely important that every flow
> reacts appropriately).
>
> Thanks,
>
> /Markku
>
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Yoshi
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:17 AM Neal Cardwell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >       Hi Markku and TCPMers,
> >
> > My understanding of Markku's concern here is that in slow start the cwnd
> can continue to grow in
> > response to ACKs after the lost packet was sent, so that the cwnd is
> often twice the level of in-flight
> > data at which the loss happened, by the time the loss is detected. So
> the cwnd ends up at 2 * 0.7 = 1.4x
> > the level at which losses happened, which causes an unnecessary
> follow-on round with losses, in order to
> > again cut the cwnd, this time to 1.4 * 0.7 = 0.98x of the level that
> causes losses, which is likely to
> > finally fit in the network path.
> >
> > However, there are two technical issues with this concern, as expressed
> in the proposed draft text in
> > this thread:
> >
> > (1) The analysis for slow-start is not correct for the very common case
> where the flow is
> > application-limited in slow-start, in which case the cwnd would not grow
> at all between the packet loss
> > and the time the loss is detected. So the text is needlessly strict in
> this case.
> >
> > (2) For CUBIC the problematic dynamic (of cwnd growth between loss and
> loss detection exceeding the
> > multiplicative decrease) can also occur outside of slow-start, in
> congestion avoidance. The CUBIC cwnd
> > growth in congestion avoidance can be up to 1.5x per round trip. So
> after a packet loss the cwnd could
> > grow by 1.5x before loss detection and then be cut in response to loss
> by 0.7, causing the ultimate cwnd
> > to be 1.5 * 0.7 = 1.05x the volume of in-flight data at the time of the
> packet loss. This would likely
> > cause an unnecessary follow-on round of packet loss due to failing to
> cut cwnd below the level that
> > caused loss. So the problem is actually wider than slow-start.
> >
> > AFAICT a complete/general fix for this issue is best solved by recording
> the volume of inflight data at
> > the point of each packet transmission, and then using that metric as the
> baseline for the multiplicative
> > decrease when packet loss is detected, rather than using the current
> cwnd as the baseline. This is the
> > approach that BBRv2 uses. Perhaps there are other, simpler approaches as
> well.
> >
> > I also agree with Vidhi's concern, that a change to the multiplicative
> decrease changes the algorithm
> > substantially. To ensure that the draft/RFC is not recommending
> something that has unforeseen
> > significant negative consequences, we shouldn't make such a significant
> change to the text until we get
> > experience w/ the new variation.
> >
> > best regards,
> > neal
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:08 PM Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >       Hi Markku,
> >
> >       I emailed about this to other co-authors and we think that this
> change is completely
> >       untested for Cubic and we think that this could be considered of a
> future version of Cubic,
> >       not the current rfc8312bis.
> >       To change Beta from 0.7 to 0.5 during slow-start, we would at
> least need some experience
> >       either from lab testing or deployment since all current
> deployments of Cubic for both TCP
> >       and QUIC use 0.7 as Beta during slow start. Since a lot of
> implementations currently use
> >       hystart(++) along with Cubic, we don’t see any high risk of
> overaggressive sending rate and
> >       that is what the current rfc8312bis suggests as well. In fact,
> changing Beta from 0.7 to 0.5
> >       can still be aggressive without using hystart.
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >       Vidhi
> >
> >       > On Jul 11, 2022, at 5:55 PM, Markku Kojo <kojo=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >       >
> >       > Hi all,
> >       >
> >       > below please find proposed text to solve the Issue 2 a). I will
> propose text to solve 2 b)
> >       once we have come to conclusion with 2 a). For description and
> arguments for issues 2 a) and
> >       2 b), please see the original issue descriptions below.
> >       >
> >       > Sec 4.6. Multiplicative Decrease
> >       >
> >       > Old:
> >       >   The parameter Beta__cubic_ SHOULD be set to 0.7, which is
> different
> >       >   from the multiplicative decrease factor used in [RFC5681] (and
> >       >   [RFC6675]) during fast recovery.
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > New:
> >       >   If the sender is not in slow start when the congestion event is
> >       >   detected, the parameter Beta__cubic_ SHOULD be set to 0.7,
> which
> >       >   is different from the multiplicative decrease factor used in
> >       >   [RFC5681] (and [RFC6675].
> >       >   This change is justified in the Reno-friendly region during
> >       >   congestion avoidance because a CUBIC sender compensates the
> higher
> >       >   multiplicative decrease factor than that of Reno by applying
> >       >   a lower additive increase factor during congestion avoidance.
> >       >
> >       >   However, if the sender is in slow start when the congestion
> event is
> >       >   detected, the parameter Beta__cubic_ MUST be set to 0.5
> [Jacob88].
> >       >   This results in the sender continuing to transmit data at the
> maximum
> >       >   rate that the slow start determined to be available for the
> flow.
> >       >   Using Beta__cubic_ with a value larger than 0.5 when the
> congestion
> >       >   event is detected in slow start would result in an
> overagressive send
> >       >   rate where the sender injects excess packets into the network
> and
> >       >   each such packet is guaranteed to be dropped or force a packet
> from
> >       >   a competing flow to be dropped at a tail-drop bottleneck
> router.
> >       >   Furthermore, injecting such undelivered packets creates a
> danger of
> >       >   congestion collapse (of some degree) "by delivering packets
> through
> >       >   the network that are dropped before reaching their ultimate
> >       >   destination." [RFC 2914]
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >   [Jacob88] V. Jacobson, Congestion avoidance and control,
> SIGCOMM '88.
> >       >
> >       > Thanks,
> >       >
> >       > /Markku
> >       >
> >       > On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, Markku Kojo wrote:
> >       >
> >       >> Hi all,
> >       >>
> >       >> this thread starts the discussion on the issue 2: CUBIC is
> specified to use incorrect
> >       multiplicative-decrease factor for a congestion event that occurs
> when operating in slow
> >       start. And, applying HyStart++ does not remove the problem, it
> only mitigates it in some
> >       percentage of cases.
> >       >>
> >       >> I think it is useful to discuss this in two phases: 2 a) and 2
> b) below.
> >       >> For anyone commenting/arguing on the part 2 b), it is important
> to first
> >       >> acknowledge whether (s)he thinks the original design and logic
> by Van Jacobson is
> >       correct. If not, one should explain why Van's design logic is
> incorrect.
> >       >>
> >       >> Issue 2 a)
> >       >> ----------
> >       >>
> >       >> To begin with, let's but aside a potential use of HyStart++
> (also assume tail drop router
> >       unless otherwise mentioned).
> >       >>
> >       >> The use of an MD factor larger than 0.5 is against the theory
> and original design by Van
> >       Jacobson as explained in the congavoid paper [Jacob88]. Any MD
> factor value larger then 0.5
> >       will result sending extra packets during Fast Recovery following
> the congestion event
> >       (drop). All extra packets will become dropped at a tail-drop
> bottleneck (if a lonely flow).
> >       >>
> >       >> Note that at the time when the drop becomes signalled at the
> TCP sender, the size of the
> >       cwnd is double the available network capacity that slow start
> determined for the flow. That
> >       is, using MD=0.5 is already as aggressive as possible, leaving no
> slack. Therefore, if
> >       MD=0.7 is used, the TCP sender enters fast recovery with cwnd that
> is 40% larger that the
> >       determined network capacity and all excess packets are guaranteed
> to become dropped, or even
> >       worse, the excess packets are likely to force packets for any
> competing flows to become
> >       unfairly be dropped.
> >       >>
> >       >> Moreover, if NewReno loss recovery is in use, a CUBIC sender
> will
> >       >> operate overagressively for a very long time. For example, if
> the
> >       >> available network capacity for the flow is 100 packets, cwnd
> will have
> >       >> value 200 when the congestion is signalled and the CUBIC sender
> enters
> >       >> fast recovery with cwnd=140 and injects 40 excess packets for
> each of
> >       >> the subsequent 100 RTTs it stays in fast recovery, forcing 4000
> packets to become
> >       inevitably and totally unnecessarily dropped.
> >       >>
> >       >> Even worse, this behaviour of sending 'undelivered packets' is
> against
> >       >> the congestion control principles as it creates a danger of
> congestion
> >       >> collapse (of some degree) "by delivering packets through the
> network
> >       >> that are dropped before reaching their ultimate destination."
> [RFC 2914]
> >       >>
> >       >> Such undelivered packets unnecessarily eat capacity from other
> flows
> >       >> sharing the path before the bottleneck.
> >       >>
> >       >> RFC 2914 emphasises:
> >       >>
> >       >> "This is probably the largest unresolved danger with respect to
> >       >> congestion collapse in the Internet today."
> >       >>
> >       >> It is very easy to envision a realistic network setup where
> this creates a degree of
> >       congestion collapse where a notable portion of useful network
> capacity is wasted due to the
> >       undelivered packets.
> >       >>
> >       >>
> >       >> [Jacob88] V. Jacobson, Congestion avoidance and control,
> SIGCOMM '88.
> >       >>
> >       >>
> >       >> Issue 2 b)
> >       >> ----------
> >       >>
> >       >> The CUBIC draft suggests that HyStart++ should be used
> *everywhere* instead of the
> >       traditional Slow Start (see section 4.10).
> >       >>
> >       >> Although the draft does not say it, seemingly the authors
> suggest using HyStart++ instead
> >       of traditional Slow Start in order to avoid the problem of
> over-aggressive behaviour
> >       discussed above. This, however, has several issues.
> >       >>
> >       >> First. it is directly in conflict with HyStart++ specification
> which says that HyStart++
> >       should be used only for the initial Slow Start. However, the
> overaggressive behaviour after
> >       slow start is also a potential problem with slow start during an
> RTO recovery; in case of
> >       sudden congestion that reduces available capacity for a flow down
> to a fraction of the
> >       currently available capacity, it is very likely that an RTO
> occurs. In such a case the RTO
> >       recovery in slow start inevitably overshoots and it is crucial for
> all flows not to be
> >       overaggressive.
> >       >>
> >       >> Second, the experimental results for initial slow start in
> HyStart++ draft suggest that
> >       while HyStart++ achieves good results HyStart++ is unable to exit
> slow start early and avoid
> >       overshoot in a significant percentage of cases.
> >       >>
> >       >> Given the above issues, the CUBIC draft must require that MD of
> 0.5 is used when the
> >       congestion event occurs while the sender is (still) in slow start.
> The use of MD=0.5 is an
> >       obvious stumble in the original CUBIC and the original CUBIC
> authors have already
> >       acknowledged this. It seems also obvious that instead of
> correcting the actual problem (use
> >       of MD other than 0.5), HyStart and HyStart++ have been proposed to
> address the design
> >       mistake. While HyStart++ is a useful method also when used with
> MD=0.5, when used alone it
> >       only mitigates the impact of the actual problem rather than solves
> the problem.
> >       >>
> >       >> What should be done for the cases where HyStart++ exits slow
> start but
> >       >> is not able to avoid (some level of) overshoot and dropped
> packets is IMO an open issue.
> >       Resolving it requires additional experiments and it should be
> resolved separately when we
> >       have more data. For now when we do not have enough data and
> understanding of the behaviour
> >       we should IMO follow the general IETF guideline "be conservative
> in what you send" and
> >       specify that MD = 0.5 should be used for a congestion event that
> occurs for a packet sent in
> >       slow start.
> >       >>
> >       >> Thanks,
> >       >>
> >       >> /Markku
> >       >>
> >       >
> >       > _______________________________________________
> >       > tcpm mailing list
> >       > [e-mail]
> >       > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       tcpm mailing list
> >       [e-mail]
> >       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> >
> >