Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-13.txt

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Sun, 20 June 2021 19:02 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 681E13A0B4F; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 12:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.252
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 YYoXMjm3aPv3; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218533A0B59; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 12:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1624215706; bh=43oUVzH0i1WTImNChzk4o0j7rgvqRv1AgM9DIPN11L4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=VKasyejTlNrYa8XYhkL4j0Ke1NLXK7yMn9PvAEbdOX8mdo7qKp46FiWwLNJWwebYb LCl/wLYaI7mRsLEg1ng6E+7sXvI5xRytUs+IZZArXtQhOc/3Oarkgjg1ulx9oRtG7x AKqsLYUojRZ12+mEbbFOJVGb1Zjrbxe4QD5FEkhQ=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.42.229] ([77.0.193.195]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MfpSb-1lNckl0McD-00gLFJ; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 21:01:46 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <1599550B-FF22-4DF3-9467-9C157E6F39AC@strayalpha.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 21:01:41 +0200
Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>, i-d-announce@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <16266BFE-A9C0-4DD9-A878-E5D51056CC2F@gmx.de>
References: <162408795080.21706.5548660195641640175@ietfa.amsl.com> <C2C396E7-B728-496E-841B-D9F64004D3E3@strayalpha.com> <20210620043304.c6xerpura7lyw6yo@family.redbarn.org> <95274A1D-3C51-4D40-A5AB-7E8A4AEFDD1B@strayalpha.com> <20210620171249.le6tjyi7h66jggq2@family.redbarn.org> <1599550B-FF22-4DF3-9467-9C157E6F39AC@strayalpha.com>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:8T4WDJu93T9qdzh42UJXeezfRVurvlcknjkgWQqnKYctnR0hmM1 pRTXB0zSm8L73F0404iypcTxeYEKJbaXaHEBmHOa4VqZL93E04xIKvEmYMJKy5EzUrJMdMm nF/IO8KWnn9Hzer4nbG8ZsqEZeykf2cyc/l+hB9FlVFqfhkFeLiKtTiD9Pn+1hoqPBBs/AM hxIxbryitgXVlzt3tNklg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:J6rVeYzaVCY=:tUzjoIDYOn668PxQ10H8MZ 88S0K1HtYDWaf9BGdVWD3Wwja+m80wO+RMzNY4vXgwEsOk91jHQX3Q00MreKH0tXXFb7Hmj8x nLY3JhR/oqVJEUZesbkog6JRoioCiom5cCODqgPn1wSS3vWPqs0765UQHFAPlE4cs1Pei/uhn r5hqlVUhhSBkdxx0UpHIszEZ/vUrD2rSOXfmw5phU21mkH/Q6/OaMf0rIp+dZElLriXDwkbMk NXLdHNI8DD5ggVIsZZ4NCzDckWrLyKE/eyQhfwk8vbCJ0y3t2ycfancYEOdnwREjrN5eRp6Eb K/xrNx79Uphi34dC/k6tSdYSdl1YiM7zllIOeDSmD4MFHaaK39zt7KDLW/FYE5YpXg9vkgq3y fdSdTwo+0ayWgYunX1qn5WjHZdu52NdJ0lzr6KbKaPDzac/nrQT8/B/su+RrZOFL7/jzVuI6p JKRqwH3ChAHNr2T86TEJdShvRlZGQoE7WDcg7NxpQj0UWll+XcQJa7h0eOcLwO01AYM2GfHId tK/vkknPJrCrr833F/kgdQoQeFZ6cFucslk9L7SD2eJhkzcmrPnJ7QbjfW5WdsCz3DZUpsaeh tj1GGpVMhG2ru5Hi63DP7HHY0J9j80QV+cA2QjcY5+eXmEI/UmejjC2jcwyWZeDoXkfiXbIlZ nepzl24egMmFYoZqf5Fx0F1d7ke1bRdkQemHPQP/8wh3MNC6CxilH/KMyVS5PFHUfGfATH11c phUj+eSzv7BTGUwHc3yZUnWN9BXrHSF94J0KmgySprixeH/795/JzJB348fpSM++VJTV/ciDr HqXvdANiw7H2DuGbFXzjQuBOcCtR7ppvqQYWkZulocaU63MAuYA1AZwcWdGZoiY82cXPktryD 7YuFWZ6LEfi9shAUVWTxCkOjpTGNOfercHdyU8p2bE2h6eABrEOnUh6pW6DjWVUvfxH69gEbX p8l+t8Xu8ArKEPhPTsrCbukLvXy4smRWHeOA4pIoN+dSC8rxIO9Klypru1k21qh7gU8hYOxKh FnoEd96sItP+goB1/QAtU3UZjUZwD8ihP1xLWWwsr64FZdNM86jIeJ/DINBkGV2GSCHiJlKwQ 3LWBPWy9YeDLMmSbxBhJPC4Cil/OQR8iAoK
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/9H_wXuaP_LWJAT_EKhE7Y5l-27k>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-13.txt
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: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 19:02:06 -0000

> On Jun 20, 2021, at 20:51, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, there is no guidance on TCP transmitting its 10 segments back to back, AFAICT.

Not sure about guidance here, but there is some data on what is done in the existing internet....
IIUC not all relevant player seem to limit the initial window to 10, see e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.08937.pdf. Some of these seem to pace packets exceeding 10, others do not (or rather did not when that paper's data was acquired). 

Regards
	Sebastian




> Joe
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:54:54AM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> Note that TCP bursts up to 10 packets right now anyway,
>>> so I don???t see why UDP fragments couldn???t do the same.
>> 
>> if tcp sends more than three before it has any estimate of the congestion
>> window, then i withdraw my suggestion of "3". however, i ask that some
>> guidance be offered about not transmitting fragments back to back, if the
>> number is larger than "2". and i do hope the number will be larger than "2",
>> due to page/MTU sizes.
>> 
>> vixie
>> 
>> re:
>> 
>>>> On Jun 19, 2021, at 9:33 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:38:51AM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> How many frags MUST be supported 2? 4?
>>>> 
>>>> if they'll be transmitted back to back, microburst style, like IP fragments are,
>>>> then 2. if there's implementation guidance to send the frags isochronously on
>>>> a schedule of some kind, to give other transmissions an opportunity to enter,
>>>> then 3. on today-typical MTU 1500 networks, "3" allows a today-typical 4K page
>>>> to be sent as a fragmented UDP datagram. in future networks we should expect
>>>> this ratio from then-typical MTU to then-typical page size to be more or less
>>>> similar.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Paul Vixie
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Paul Vixie
>> 
>