Re: [tcpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Linux doesn’t implement RFC3465

[Vidhi Goel <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Yuchung’s suggestion for all the reasons he provided. And its better to have it at one place.

Vidhi

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi WG
> 
> I have been wondering if we (= IETF) should just update RFC5681 directly, instead of another RFC3465-bis with experimental status.
> 
> Appropriate byte counting is essential but the RFC5681 of L=1 is detrimental. There are far more people who read RFC5681 to implement the new stack instead of RFC3465. So we should fold the experimental RFC3465 updates into RFC5681 directly, and obsolete RFC3465.
> 
> This is orthogonal to the final value of L :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:42 AM Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:12 PM Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:53 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 8:46 PM Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> In experiments a few years ago on DC networks, values over L=8 resulted in a noticeable increase in packet drops and retransmissions (without pacing). Windows TCP has been using L=8 for many years now. If we do want to specify a fallback L value for implementations that cannot pace, my suggestion would be to use the value 8.
> 
>  
> 
> Neal, are there cases where Linux is or can be deployed with infinite L and no pacing?
> 
> 
> Yes, "infinite L and no pacing" is the default behavior for Linux TCP, starting in 2013 for slow-start and then starting in 2015 for congestion avoidance.
> To be more clear: both fq_pacing and TCP pacing have been disabled by default in Linux upstream. We do not know how much Linux senders enable them today besides the Google servers.
> 
> Regarding L = 8, to avoid another round of why or why not. We could say inf-L causes line-rate burst up to the stretched ACK degree so put a comfortable L if you prefer, then mention implementation practice like yours. At the end of the day it's ad-hoc (or "art") and subject to change. It might be sensible to cap at cwnd to disincentivize receivers / middle-boxes bunching up 10 rounds of ACKs.
> Sorry please ignore my previous message about the cwnd cap. It is completely unnecessary -- since with ack-clocking and appropriate counting, a correct sender would never release more than a cwnd-worth of data. I was imagining the multiple application-limited burst could let the receiver keep holding up ACKs, but that can never exceed a cwnd worth of data.
>  
> 
>  
> Yuchung pasted the URLs for the exact Linux commits above, which are:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9f9843a751d0a2057f9f3d313886e7e5e6ebaac9 <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9f9843a751d0a2057f9f3d313886e7e5e6ebaac9>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9cd981dcf174d26805a032aefa791436da709bee <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9cd981dcf174d26805a032aefa791436da709bee>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c22bdca94782f05b9337d8548bde51b2f38ef17f <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c22bdca94782f05b9337d8548bde51b2f38ef17f>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=814d488c61260521b1b3cc97063700a5a6667c8f <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=814d488c61260521b1b3cc97063700a5a6667c8f>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e73ebb0881ea5534ce606c1d71b4ac44db5c6930 <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e73ebb0881ea5534ce606c1d71b4ac44db5c6930>
> 
> But I understand that not everyone is in a position to read GPL-licensed code. :-)
> 
> best regards,
> neal
> 
>  
>  
> 
> From: tcpm <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Neal Cardwell
> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 4:18 PM
> To: Vidhi Goel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Extensions <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mark Allman <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [tcpm] Linux doesn’t implement RFC3465
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:02 PM Vidhi Goel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 3:37 PM Mark Allman <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that Linux CC has long moved to infinite L since 2031,
> 
> So, if our experience is with L=\infinity and it is demonstrably OK
> why don't we say *THAT* instead of "make L=5 or L=10"?  I would
> submit that it makes more sense to leverage experience than it does 
> 
> to make things up.
> 
> +1
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, I agree that would be a great approach to take.
> 
>  
> 
> So, we are saying it is fine to ignore L completely and simply increase cwnd by bytes_acked during slow start? And if this causes large bursts to be sent out (when an implementation doesn’t do pacing), that is fine? 
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, I think that is the proposal on the table, and it sounds good to me.
> 
>  
> 
> A rationale would be:
> 
>  
> 
> (1) Implementations SHOULD pace (RFC 7661).
> 
>  
> 
> (2) Implementations that don't pace will generally be causing large bursts for many different reasons anyway (data and/or ACK aggregation in the network or end hosts), restart from idle,...) so having a constant L does not provide enough protection from bursts to justify the cost in reduced performance (in the form of slower slow-start). In support of this, experience with this as the default behavior in Linux TCP over the  2013-2021 period suggests this works well enough in practice.
> 
>  
> 
> neal
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm