IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP Tail Loss Probe

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Fri, 28 February 2014 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rs@netapp.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 D01851A00FF for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:04:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 HbPf5kdLocXS for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604071A00D9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,563,1389772800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="105667723"
Received: from vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.35]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2014 10:04:48 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.1.77]) by vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:04:48 -0800
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: Martin Winbjörk <martin.winbjork@ericsson.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "nanditad@google.com" <nanditad@google.com>, "ncardwell@google.com" <ncardwell@google.com>, "ycheng@google.com" <ycheng@google.com>, "mattmathis@google.com" <mattmathis@google.com>
Thread-Topic: TCP Tail Loss Probe
Thread-Index: Ac80kCQu6lpocKtXSlyq1O7Kw8QrmAAHXD5g
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:04:47 +0000
Message-ID: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F260A5E48@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
References: <7FD625EF1E1B1D4586EEAB7471ECDC0A200469@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7FD625EF1E1B1D4586EEAB7471ECDC0A200469@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.122.105.28]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F260A5E48SACEXCMBX02PRDh_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/y2qg8fx_lOZPx9OzzZEBtUyR5YE
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP Tail Loss Probe
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:04:54 -0000

Hi Martin,

I hope that work hasn't been abandoned.

For one, I would like this work being formally adopted as a TCPM item and discussed, as this mechanism would address some of the problems that I wanted addressed, which can be summarized as TCP HOL blocking latency.

Now that 1323bis is asymptotically nearing publication, I also want to revive some work that got me started with Timestamps. That work was also related to loss-related latency in TCP, but dealing with lost retransmissions (and the non-ambiguous detection that a retransmission was lost).

If time permits, I want to give a short overview of that work, even though the current (expired) drafts don't include things learned during the discussions of 1323bis:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-timestamp-negotiation-05
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trammell-tcpm-timestamp-interval-01

And ideally also the way Linux currently recovers from lost retransmissions (even though the scheme making use of a modified TS sematic does not incur unnecessary latency, or fails at the end-of-stream).

Best regards,

Richard Scheffenegger


From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Winbjörk
Sent: Freitag, 28. Februar 2014 15:26
To: tcpm@ietf.org; nanditad@google.com; ncardwell@google.com; ycheng@google.com; mattmathis@google.com
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S
Subject: [tcpm] TCP Tail Loss Probe

Hi

I have a question regarding the draft for Tail Loss Probe found on the following link
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dukkipati-tcpm-tcp-loss-probe-01

What is the status of the draft? It has expired on August 29 2013. Is it still relevant and updated or has it been abandoned or continued elsewhere?

Regards
Martin Winbjörk

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email