IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols

Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk> Sat, 03 December 2022 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <crowcroft@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD142C14F75F; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ER7A5Nwh7SeY; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 08:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f47.google.com (mail-ej1-f47.google.com [209.85.218.47]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A6E3C14F745; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 08:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-f47.google.com with SMTP id bj12so18218127ejb.13; Sat, 03 Dec 2022 08:40:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=HKEn3bkHDdUaq0z1EYZWmt4qoOtzBhJPq5wLnseplQ4=; b=B/YQ10LyqK9F+tE6t6Gh/K+YAUBPCgLOx5C6pHb2yKt1KYC4rFaKcNy5NfVHEXU/Qj w6J8e0TiCXcAkxQlvjgjkCxOoScog/KUzf5TyMafCTXvkRkkQVxkQQYFCsr/FV6Wpl7K YosBO8pNhkyLwHzscj56R+f7SnmyDwEla+CbIEwnUZKheiX5II6H/2SYA9BpmZQob3+d OeRbXGG6LfdtIICgYHqqWhEu1jZ/cLk7edqaC3LXixezGB4BJqaIEBiYncg/Kkta8OPm LQrearoFWRC39kF9zXxmCB9zMTqukaR6Z/0s8mETmLG63SnLFZ254PdlqXDnfE8qGo6x oDqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plCr63QDtPkyBzpXpTCA3ePTudrBf2sDYKsVl3u38yxN7ksMMzR GskdBO1cJ7b63jkfz3qa1Ibe65BSRVH3pxptdfaDO/HP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf48gURoM5zmZSXxiS1QtM+I0FyepjVqvxeCs24e/jLy/7miBSkEIPfnJd0j5v0GH+hLzI2rd8dCzjiU5mwTHWI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6809:b0:7c0:cd95:bbaf with SMTP id k9-20020a170906680900b007c0cd95bbafmr4755195ejr.460.1670085650599; Sat, 03 Dec 2022 08:40:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y4ovyV074qa3gLSu@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAEeTejLa8sdJVU_2OfTo=ZgWRY-kv_7M=xiR-bLyBEXhSDP=Eg@mail.gmail.com> <e2527c9c-c7d1-c6b7-a067-e5ccbdc7e997@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <E1p1PaX-009tgu-Hl@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk> <c86d7ae6-3dad-04be-9c16-0135cc95fe73@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <E1p1Rbe-009zgN-1s@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk> <643e9272-979a-2a0a-d702-2b63cf0de5c4@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <643e9272-979a-2a0a-d702-2b63cf0de5c4@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 16:40:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEeTejJ3yS2fARZNchumfkNyc0cnFfVSW7VdtBaGzhJQ9KmpBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: bier@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2d31105eeef1d40"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/cUSmOt8rUTkpI7V8MBFo9Z5w0fM>
X-BeenThere: tsv-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Transport and Services Area Mailing List <tsv-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 16:40:53 -0000

I would use multipath quic rather than tcp. And for bier CTL, we want a
fine hoppy protocol like PGMcc

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022, 13:02 Masataka Ohta, <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
wrote:

> Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>
> >>      plus any of many papers on tcp incast
>
> >> I'm afraid that if TCP incast is a problem for control traffic,
> >> there should be no bandwidth left for data traffic.
>
> > incast isn't about persistent congestion, it is about synchronised
> > sources.
>
> Is it a problem even if all the multicast control traffic
> between two routers is exchanged through a single TCP
> stream?
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email