Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12.txt
Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Fri, 15 January 2021 12:43 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.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 9D5CD3A0C6C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 04:43:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.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 WqAJ8p9IOSda for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 04:43:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk (mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk [185.185.84.61]) (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 3118F3A0C6A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 04:42:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Y0ZmrbwSC1nejQZBNVjh8kVS85rcDH1KXH0KvrpluuU=; b=BO0a7QgPf7Mwg5XXCgMRoaEMOt JhqdJRzBH6MhK+FrP+zebJhoGA7QVPJ29+uezQYfkO45NxBHhTocKGWrwo4B0bUhT1MY+eB/GBx0K oW+Danyp/s8ZeMqmz5FKmGVamaCo4jjM6INL4JSglvZ3R88ksbnoE9Pd8UYyQcsnxAM4B8krFEW0X U41qg3qcb3QwJ97gE4HVwIadEYFkNFa/IhmSZMqN/0Xevwz4BcR3MApvqRtZ9vTCnC51RrrITzB8+ l472dvEYCQJANbRFXFa49gr6MJ8KvCyjKCa8e2Oml5/vFkZz+HFoux7ptiy60y2KsOM177dQtCE34 gs5b9iDg==;
Received: from 67.153.238.178.in-addr.arpa ([178.238.153.67]:40356 helo=[192.168.1.11]) by ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1l0ORN-0007By-J4; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 12:42:57 +0000
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "koen.de_schepper@nokia.com" <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <160549240201.10155.9222956071516240600@ietfa.amsl.com> <HE1PR0701MB2299E98F4A5EE6B78C74B1A2C2A80@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <b167b12e-260a-bbd8-fff7-659f2d453130@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 12:42:56 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0701MB2299E98F4A5EE6B78C74B1A2C2A80@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/CPekjIZI53RXyzBq8WrsQWdGKI4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12.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: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 12:43:03 -0000
Ingemar, Just to thank you for the comments at this stage. I'll deal with these shortly. Cheers Bob On 14/01/2021 15:26, Ingemar Johansson S wrote: > Hi > I have now re-read this draft with some more careful eyes. It is not for > certain that the comments lead to any major changes in the draft, but > nonetheless... > > I tried to look at this from a real time media congestion control perspective > (RTP/UDP) and based on the experience I've had with SCReAM and L4S thus far. > This can also serve as an indication how well the requirements in section 4.3 > is fulfilled at the time of writing this email. > > /Ingemar > > ================= > Section 4.3 : Prerequisite Congestion Response > Quote "As well as responding to ECN markings, a scalable congestion > control MUST react to packet loss in a way that will coexist > safely with a TCP Reno congestion control " > SCReAM backs off, on packet loss, but not with a factor 0.5. Rather it scales > down the congestion window with a factor 0.8. The rationale is that the > encoded video has a variable frame size and that gives some additional > headroom to avoid that the larger frames build up a large queue. The outcome > is still that SCReAM can coexist safely with Reno > > Quote "A scalable congestion control MUST implement monitoring in order > to detect a likely non-L4S but ECN-capable AQM at the bottleneck." > SCReAM use delay based congestion control. The estimated queue delay will be > near zero when L4S bottlenecks are encountered. For cases with classic ECN > queues in the network, the queue delay would be higher which means that it > should be possible to detect non-L4S but ECN capable AQMs > > Quote "A scalable congestion control MUST eliminate RTT bias as much as > possible in the range between the minimum likely RTT and typical > RTTs expected in the intended deployment scenario " > This has drawn less focus and needs to be evaluated and possibly addressed. It > is here likely that the algorithms devised for Prague can be used > > Quote "A scalable congestion control SHOULD remain responsive to > congestion when typical RTTs over the public Internet are > significantly smaller because they are no longer inflated by > queuing delay" > The minimum congestion window is 3 MSS (configurable). SCReAM however > implements packet pacing but SCReAMs performance in very low RTT deployments > is not yet evaluated. > > Quote "A scalable congestion control SHOULD detect loss by counting in > time-based units". SCReAM implements loss detection in time based units > only. > > Quote "A scalable congestion control is expected to limit the queue > caused by bursts of packets." SCReAM by default implements packet > pacing. Lately however it has been experimented with microburst pacing wherein > packets are transmitted in bursts with e.g. 2 or 5ms. The reason to this is > that it can help to reduce power consumption in 5G phones. > > ================= > Section 4.3 Filtering or Smoothing of ECN Feedback > Quote "the specification > of a particular L4S congestion control SHOULD describe how it smooths > the L4S ECN signals fed back to it from the receiver" > The RTCP feedback > (https://tools.ietf.org/wg/avtcore/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message/ ) > indicates CE mark for each packet, this means that no smoothing is applied on > the CE marks. The L4S congestion response in the sender is similar to DCTCP > and Prague. > > ================= > Section 5.2 The Meaning of L4S CE Relative to Drop > Quote "An L4S AQM SHOULD NOT > smooth or filter out variations in the queue before signalling > congestion." > I believe the SHOULD NOT is reasonable. In some cases it may however be > necessary to apply some limited smoothing. One example is where congestion is > detected on the RLC layer in a 5G system. It I not always realistic to signal > a marking decision up to the PDCP layer, where the IP packets are marked, for > each packet that is scheduled for transmission. This because it can cause a > too high internal signaling overhead in the radio base stations. A more > realistic solution is to signal a marking probability up to the PDCP layer. > Smoothing is applied to avoid the issues that the subsampling of the RLC queue > delay can cause. > > ================= > Section 5.5 Limiting Packet Bursts from Links Supporting L4S AQMs > Quote "Some take the attitude that there is no point reducing burst delay", > perhaps can be reworded as "One may argue that ......" > In general, 4G and 5G systems can generate packet bursts due to how they are > designed. On the other hand, the use of larger sub carrier spacing (shorter > time slots) will also reduce the burst delays. > > ================= > Section 6.1 Open questions > In addition to all the metrics, I believe that it can be good to also be able > to record the ratio of marked packets (average, 95%, max?) . My sense is that > endpoints that behave reasonably well will have marking ratios up to say 20% > (guessing a bit)? If problems occur, then recording of L4S marking ratios can > give an indication of e.g. issues with bloated access links are because of > endpoints that implement poor or non-functional congestion control. > > ================= > Section 6.3 Future Potential > Although SCReAM appears to work reasonably well (more testing needed), I do > believe that there is a lot of room for improvement as regards to how one > stream low latency real time video from mostly "black box" encoders (with > wildly varying frame sizes) over L4S capable access. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Sent: den 16 november 2020 03:07 >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org >> Subject: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12.txt >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group WG of the >> IETF. >> >> Title : Identifying Modified Explicit Congestion >> Notification (ECN) >> Semantics for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay (L4S) >> Authors : Koen De Schepper >> Bob Briscoe >> Filename : draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12.txt >> Pages : 58 >> Date : 2020-11-15 >> >> Abstract: >> This specification defines the identifier to be used on IP packets >> for a new network service called low latency, low loss and scalable >> throughput (L4S). L4S uses an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) >> scheme that is similar to the original (or 'Classic') ECN approach. >> 'Classic' ECN marking was required to be equivalent to a drop, both >> when applied in the network and when responded to by a transport. >> Unlike 'Classic' ECN marking, for packets carrying the L4S >> identifier, the network applies marking more immediately and more >> aggressively than drop, and the transport response to each mark is >> reduced and smoothed relative to that for drop. The two changes >> counterbalance each other so that the throughput of an L4S flow will >> be roughly the same as a non-L4S flow under the same conditions. >> Nonetheless, the much more frequent control signals and the finer >> responses to them result in much more fine-grained adjustments, so >> that ultra-low and consistently low queuing delay (typically sub- >> millisecond on average) becomes possible for L4S traffic without >> compromising link utilization. Thus even capacity-seeking (TCP-like) >> traffic can have high bandwidth and very low delay at the same time, >> even during periods of high traffic load. >> >> The L4S identifier defined in this document distinguishes L4S from >> 'Classic' (e.g. TCP-Reno-friendly) traffic. It gives an incremental >> migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can >> distinguish and isolate existing traffic that still follows the >> Classic behaviour, to prevent it degrading the low queuing delay and >> low loss of L4S traffic. This specification defines the rules that >> L4S transports and network elements need to follow to ensure they >> neither harm each other's performance nor that of Classic traffic. >> Examples of new active queue management (AQM) marking algorithms and >> examples of new transports (whether TCP-like or real-time) are >> specified separately. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id/ >> >> There are also htmlized versions available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-1… internet-drafts
- Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-… Bob Briscoe