Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] per-flow scheduling

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Wed, 26 June 2019 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066D212027B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 05:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 xx2jPRxLTOjp for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 05:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 7BD7C12044A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 05:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1561553314; bh=0pl0wKfYAZnvYihvyT0APnEb2ojLDXGw0kfFFYPQp3k=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=ii0lwd/WpvPUo+LrEL9JT6dGpLvPqoUuI22opOGfExlnxszcHLr4KDOD9CyfNZP6U k1hYsoP+Gesvr7+ZgHG4Snorxo7I0JiSGfTx9CHjzgfnpIASDyjj8HNgQU59fyeMp3 8CVmc3bJAQO4V6GXTmRzYFw0ylObNz9JSptueL4w=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.250.102] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MhlGq-1iB4OA2aXI-00dlGX; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:48:34 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <1561241377.4026977@apps.rackspace.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:48:32 +0200
Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E863FC5-D30E-4F76-BDF7-6A787958C628@gmx.de>
References: <350f8dd5-65d4-d2f3-4d65-784c0379f58c@bobbriscoe.net> <46D1ABD8-715D-44D2-B7A0-12FE2A9263FE@gmx.de> <CAHx=1M4+sJBEe-wqCyuVyy=oDz7A+SG_ZxBbu_ZZDZiCHrX2uw@mail.gmail.com> <835b1fb3-e8d5-c58c-e2f8-03d2b886af38@gmail.com> <1561233009.95886420@apps.rackspace.com> <71EF351D-AFBF-4C92-B6B9-7FD695B68815@gmail.com> <1561241377.4026977@apps.rackspace.com>
To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@deepplum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:31PKxqFyIdWUcSKkFwgohDzZm4B7DtYdQX8GQ2+D2xMTlzRfr/Z N67AjfapX600nI6t6TjtV0usx2BhTD252dVqf5LdahiORLojGkEf+PM98xVGE5U8eZcJNXD JPc9Jz8I7Xve2PqBbf61oeJpW94OZawlpl+IWJdsvhhg/QeZmqIZzbu5/fDTfuMgN2+JImW WAJMnohPcQvx07qF3m/cQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:58Ub2CowqUE=:yp3iIrzsEjvjFZ0aJIcUqF e21ghI4xMOb3Njmxf/cZGyyiculo+frtOc6nRcGoqOIzmlylCH0sfJA7c65cng2fsKFHcw1ox Itlu5fJnVQ8oY4cHpX9lgTTbtoIV2FWx/emjKBM4+5mpNkJ1xxQc2Zaqv5BRzXH8yWwKArWSG GjqTXUORyDy55PLxwgBwd3ljQ2F6/rlpNSHlB2lqJSBhgJNv0NRmEK92BziYylAAbekt9BM4+ SIUgsO1MFWyg6YfrB7k1yKtegj7bEHawjBiFat9zqEj05P8axu+ldNALmouPXcNOYMWv3W9dX 2VRM3uje3oZBazHt4mde9qliUJoLl8EGxKOYjjvGi3geITuK05cTP3DjP727rlLa3Tl4iDuVy 3ZzMXfdNEs+PeIVV/pBh1nAXSvikfGs9ehNY8HyJsa+ppfUGYB/4rWVBNVtz1VfEt51haNDPQ bMRudGTTm70L0gzuI873hanidD1nFPILBQtPoiiwgV8t5709faWXREb+LAINducj8Vy0THXuw muUezg6bVroR226NNMNE7m3oqAp9S61jo0zhgvFecSnPiNQI0NybY4niyaiXmUXrD9US6+sCm M7VdlrEogbDpQsMjxazYMPRvoi4Ui8NlrDXdyGXYDcY6JQswb3iI73ylHVpPhg3Uy5jzSqCfh qX5xJWM47K2cnYdJszNTSOuH6hPpvbA8g7J+vwCyNm44GDQxvHPE59C5I/kycRZ5Tg/I4WSSJ YKoURdyqAZaICUCw1zKa/oZYe1ZLVwudNYK71o13ol0Rf96DMYi53z0GKjtmhKnprOmGykxBN DM0d+p8DuDbzEJ3gtVU4fjP04PptTZPai5M/85+neQ4qR86QD1M0aZ7cOq2CYD+pQep1VQhlB PUVGxmwWUjrztfAtS1fDXj/l+KhFrvLHZgzz4s5msUarKvv8s23Lc69Pr4uAUkWZs7bIc6KN3 BUkaTV/uLurWYH7AlRnDH1YwnFLg78XBU7zc4mcXH8+A38XW6zu2/v/0YhaflqVRkim+jWLRZ 55/UpekNWk0CZ2ZGL48UeHFNNvqOM7mF4CeDMU2i/e3z61CupwYdTBGbEzpS9+B5TRNprUkHF 2LBHYvOFhdJtR4=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/1SHGfaePL3hJvcORSu1b0NOi6NQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Ecn-sane] per-flow scheduling
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:48:47 -0000


> On Jun 23, 2019, at 00:09, David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
>  
> per-flow scheduling is appropriate on a shared link. However, the end-to-end argument would suggest that the network not try to divine which flows get preferred.
> And beyond the end-to-end argument, there's a practical problem - since the ideal state of a shared link means that it ought to have no local backlog in the queue, the information needed to schedule "fairly" isn't in the queue backlog itself.  If there is only one packet, what's to schedule?
>  
[...]

Excuse my stupidity, but the "only one single packet" case is the theoretical limiting case, no? 
Because even on a link not running at capacity this effectively requires a mechanism to "synchronize" all senders (whose packets traverse the hop we are looking at), as no other packet is allowed to reach the hop unless the "current" one has been passed to the PHY otherwise we transiently queue 2 packets (I note that this rationale should hold for any small N). The more packets per second a hop handles the less likely it will be to avoid  for any newcomer to run into an already existing packet(s), that is to transiently grow the queue.
Not having a CS background, I fail to see how this required synchronized state can exist outside of a few steady state configurations where things change slowly enough that the  seemingly required synchronization can actually happen (given that the feedback loop e.g. through ACKs, seems somewhat jittery). Since packets never know which path they take and which hop is going to be critical there seems to be no a priori way to synchronize all senders, heck I fail to see whether it would be possible at all to guarantee synchronized behavior on more than one hop (unless all hops are extremely uniform).
I happen to believe that L4S suffers from the same conceptual issue (plus overly generic promises, from the RITE website:
"We are so used to the unpredictability of queuing delay, we don’t know how good the Internet would feel without it. The RITE project has developed simple technology to make queuing delay a thing of the past—not just for a select few apps, but for all." this seems missing a conditions apply statement)

Best Regards
	Sebastian