Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: sce vs l4s comparison plots?

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.com>
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 83DAD1200EC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:21:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 wP1n1iLtvSaf for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:21:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 01C701200C3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:21:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id d5so2618679ljl.4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:21:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NQYSSOjfM7zdpOYBZCOOSUSOc9PtOdeYE4KvvBsPI3Y=; b=o9Iovs7pkCThpbbVZmkD8AQ9Btcwka1gH8/MSSx4XAfnS2EHGivccbK8Bu36xJuVfU DBxte9Ap7kGjh/m6phUnX72IomUBxb8jeE8rink0B03HFw83zj7us5ssNmmDcR9gvweB eJ9W+DemYMHRS5frFWAnz+F0OghgWdT03r7FX7MlhuogLi9UR0M4PfNVsWFwfBUSNISo osiVPKzKzYAESB/7LFHejJ7/mIlYSzw77tuv+U0Oc3hNFOeRA/08vmD5MKUqYsl5HPzO OeYbNcEIvUvytp0Veb+YlfEOeYubKfcq3bmZJx94CbmPLzr8VpXjJkHiiGj8SzNt0mrN oqfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NQYSSOjfM7zdpOYBZCOOSUSOc9PtOdeYE4KvvBsPI3Y=; b=ChXloAf46Mhevnvu87Vjb+/cycwlza+39qTEnPUnB9i/pKyFddDjstzJFoFyGWOwCz W3boGiLozSf8ORiobqC3KB1LOKQj3KU3gnTlQOWBiFZfQvF4GTY6D9fnDQDvvLwv6C5k Q5FWLSMk13GmJiI4jhnurtJ0kvV5mjJ1edsOlZ9pbW5db1Orw2pCeFATTdmWCyCKrjXC 4E7U59a6zjV8rcqomfgM8jMY6/thnPFHQoFlIra3CxvgziXypPOA++/Nb/Bg9yfmNIWD Umki/Nn62H9AghJhy1FMQ42rdt/tJfLj/m6p/+mL977CagJdIDHYGYyd6tlCFlPMtuDS grEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXpykaB3YSscoqUu4CkGSGsDPif5e6g8NzCPpHpw0021t7yL7aG Rrk2tPV44UYo68d8Vlm2+MU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwiYrsh+DC5FekscpVtQjP5uyFNzzu4SNPCmr+fK0Tabklk6OAbRFocq0eV8JkpTnrOKunoDA==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9699:: with SMTP id q25mr14431411lji.251.1573442508119; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (85-76-23-24-nat.elisa-mobile.fi. [85.76.23.24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r19sm6326727lfi.13.2019.11.10.19.21.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:21:47 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC2TnRyjb1ax8H+03h-N+kzF2NRvbaS-pNO2tYFEedo6KAoNFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 05:21:45 +0200
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F6B259A-CFFB-4C78-9550-08E08B0B1F38@gmail.com>
References: <4b67d594-e4fc-92d8-fcdc-8384fcb7286b@tomh.org> <ea3f094e-3ad2-e9f2-d046-b1f14c46a4ea@tomh.org> <CAC2TnRyjb1ax8H+03h-N+kzF2NRvbaS-pNO2tYFEedo6KAoNFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Henderson <tomhend@uw.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/CK0WdLsyh_egIB5BAFc8wjKeQCM>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: sce vs l4s comparison plots?
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:21:52 -0000

> On 11 Nov, 2019, at 5:13 am, Tom Henderson <tomhend@uw.edu> wrote:
> 
> Correct, we do not have an ns-3 model for GSO/TSO. Is it needed (in
> the simulation) if BQL is enabled with small device queues?

GSO could form superpackets on egress even with BQL, if the latter chooses a queue depth of more than one MTU.

Also, GSO often forms superpackets on receive, so that when subsequently forwarded to an egress interface the queue has to handle them as such; receive buffers are not affected by BQL at all.

 - Jonathan Morton