IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] [tcpinc] Feedback on EDO?

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359751A017D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 ApJ23hZN3Bba for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 570B71A007B for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igcxg11 with SMTP id xg11so8843377igc.0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=bl/MBocU7bVAKRnJZqUbb9YtRweeo2PCkyjTTcKmvOA=; b=A2psZJoKvs5Z08sMi6FcTJ1onwIAY6iqLCHTKG/MFldNXIVjvwbbgMG08zE8LNRt3p L53FFhtV0Cd4mbWCNba6Y/yd3EoaRAnd4qi6uG6985/DRHPbxhTx7MRo6VYP5VN6Ahzd fWiB44u3ruIg0oni7ISa2HoP+2UG1hDfl9llqDkL7b4wB7fX+QFYqp9GCkRINDqAU6Pm B3v1JRYipmHyVnk+7f8hjNvZqwoWmsl302CrfTXk2WvCN+//2UhwCyasNR5XBQbXY8rw d70uszp0vSHcvHEBZlnG3ntbQ1QJooz3Zxza38q+NYT6h1dr6Opwyg9xGSAWZMiljRLB wZrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=bl/MBocU7bVAKRnJZqUbb9YtRweeo2PCkyjTTcKmvOA=; b=E4he2hswhYr0k93BGESzc3OcUIi1xLqcEcGYdw+5+kFiAYmGh+e2Yzh/QPfiUQGBSO M6WZZHGF1v8VK1fxA48cQX5jUeCmx5p8+SeQ9zY3yk/vnGifgxKFjdnhUVlILPyHnuCR jWhN4Ln8LN2vIqAcnaDzDCpU/3j9H9uUmoyzjv4ecCdHglUdFz3v5L6824roj/u8OCLk 24E0b1y9WFVJksMpJWBOM4fKqHqFWnoC0ObRPWeHeVfuFn7u1EZru6XfoqgGN4GfaNMr HTodRouDhBygE8s2ecj2dOe81fgxev67f9XZnR2xiQ98vo34pogEVG/LvrB2+3aY8dno j96g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQngtFumRlboIwtAX6hQW/2Kn9b4JOyxYf6eGqLZ6xM3UQWS4v23rq5Ppa2uJMqTmimp8ndw
X-Received: by 10.107.165.68 with SMTP id o65mr9370695ioe.56.1427230074834; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.24.79 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55109607.6080408@mti-systems.com>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C53584@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAK6E8=fgCrxsvP=EKakfiqhwLupTu-Q-BmEtQYEihSxNgwBuYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO249ye3ttuf+vUj54SH1i_T9nNmfWaqV154DtPL2=nq1=82HQ@mail.gmail.com> <55109243.5030700@isi.edu> <55109607.6080408@mti-systems.com>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:47:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK6E8=eO_3t7CfAbF-F1eZjsFz+B-1t7CCKVg3wfG4EWD+CvRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/xOfQ8XTsftl6bs_pxqN8-aBJXvM>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tcpinc@ietf.org" <tcpinc@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tcpinc] Feedback on EDO?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:47:56 -0000

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> On 3/23/2015 6:22 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> > Well, SACK? But, I guess common cases will be a combination of
>>> > extensions, not a specific one.
>> SACK can use as much space as it is given, AFAICT ;-)
>
>
> That's right, and there have been multiple studies that even
> showed it was useful to be able to carry a larger number of
> SACK blocks.
Please share the studies.

After today's meeting, my concerns are

1. EDO's incompatibility with HW/SW offload. I am positive we can
probably fix the SW-offload but pessimistic about changes in
HW-offload.
    Here is another data point, in addition to the iperf data
presented today: (L|G)RO and (G|T)SO are critical for Google Linux
servers.

2. Salvage operation when middleboxes strip EDO randomly in the middle
of connection

>
> In my opinion, this alone could be worthy motivation, without
> even trying to enumerate all the experimental or combinations
> of options that might (or might not) find EDO useful.
>
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email