Re: [tsvwg] QUIC with L4S

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Tue, 05 July 2022 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 AA64DC13CF74 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.783
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 JzBXt5he214N for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com (mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com [209.126.121.30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 B9121C15C14F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xse99.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.99] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx258.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1o8sF1-0004H3-74 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2022 01:46:06 +0200
Received: from xsmtp21.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.60]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Lczp023LBz8RD for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.2.49] (helo=xmail11.myhosting.com) by xsmtp21.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1o8sEy-0008G7-5Z for tsvwg@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2022 16:46:00 -0700
Received: (qmail 8038 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2022 23:45:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.104]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.46.172]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail11.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <vidhi_goel@apple.com>; 5 Jul 2022 23:45:59 -0000
Message-ID: <3325f366-1cc7-0fa6-653b-23965bce7c94@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 16:45:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel@apple.com>
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <AM8PR07MB8137710DD707BF2DB4FDEA9DC2B89@AM8PR07MB8137.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB81378A432301907ABFDFC2B8C2B89@AM8PR07MB8137.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <77332295-c7b7-21aa-7661-af5770b4c249@huitema.net> <CAB9FB5F-A00D-4924-9DF4-008380B1D4C9@apple.com>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAB9FB5F-A00D-4924-9DF4-008380B1D4C9@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.99
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9WLQux0N3HQm8ltz8rnu+BPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5wK33BxCZ4Q1O8tWwOlQNPYfYzfQXcfqmra3dmoHS4ygpqB p0iHhLc1m5ftup8sb+BWuRWrkPihq53YqAd1ENNqBHtNXu1E6L4+KyOXc4QYanQOD0r6/AaHZiEt dTMtMlia0Lmg/jgHfCNZd+W+PXf62CLEEqYPGKN9+TfCRpjw8iue9TLOhN8AYRsvkjfngQDCCqjo gBy6Z7Z1H0a6XOEbzDkBvlIN1pUDU5DU5DggD98cjIN3reG9z0FKKQ5m2Qpw7sOVVcM1Xk+Tdz6g /UMvfWqyN3veeFIMJz/vumcqAwMU9kjfE7EFo+kP5riIEUmxU01QhuxnshSbl6nxbLZ35/xY0uvo WBEOfzq3RG28wI7w4vcwqZanLHsZM8r4s5ZjlHoGly8aneNxj+pRyx6DAzHPcWsnfqGSaNoXhWPo OpFVgpT1b21uZVckGp0ccOZtuBWXiK6eoWgQZnNLL6SbpUc7peFeo3eDQNYbhOKhzzgqmaDn5SlD Y9mmtv6e91aWBLor1oCWetcUjeG94V2XTy8q18r5F7mwejpNkMpMQ89aQIYBqczAPuapU9BOtVRB pwX1azHhBEWe0nhQqwp0DRojSVizNl0ce/s7u0P9b9Tml6eOMCV9kYYwkPx6ZsXvIUzTXkDAiiJi mGhLUFuSW8D9t0kz0vlag+LRt89q4JdlwJo4g0TDwBOxODUSfEuyuLfHqAnAj7rgKH7+eCmmPo7W 9lZD6l7yQUbqIno/81ShcA6Xvva2QAVEjpqzANap+28aWyCRVT7YkY7LckVchta/vyvTjLqqJVkG MBkFwr13qFZSq8Fx+9otn0aqja8VKPqpdskk5LxBR/9t1zMMkdu6/R2FM84kxYRFSvC1IDg1BRW7 hzp8w3iHcOwbVtsmWfnQGGis4EvbR3jXsI0ESXwhBU2hwt/J18C+HygJl/jEzm1SsR8v3aJbN/NZ fa8pHhHaz+HPa0HAgEx4sWDF
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/B3zkfJRlUIz94xDwaO4ktLL8R7k>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] QUIC with L4S
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 23:46:07 -0000

On 7/5/2022 4:24 PM, Vidhi Goel wrote:
> Thank you Christian for resuming the work on scalable CC. I have been using picoQUIC as a receiver for my testing and once you merge it to main, I would use it as a sender too.
>
>> Is there a new Prague draft? I could only find an obsolete draft from 2019. Maybe I did not look in the right places.
> This is the latest - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-briscoe-iccrg-prague-congestion-control-00

Yes, that's the one I used. But it expired in September 2021. Please 
someone starts a new version, then get it to be discussed and progress!

>
> All your points are valid and I have noted them.
>
>> I also had to try a couple of different settings for the threshold value used in the simulation. Too low, and the throughput drops. Too high, and the amount of losses increases too much. In the tests, the router has a queue size of 1 BDP, and setting the threshold to BDP/4 appears to work well.
> Which AQM are you using on your router? For me setting fixed threshold = 2ms when testing over Ethernet and threshold = 4ms when testing over Wi-Fi worked well.

This was tested on a simulation. I was first testing a 10 Mbps link with 
20ms RTT. Threshold was set to 5 ms -- 1/4th of RTT.

-- Christian Huitema