Re: [tsvwg] ecn-encap-guidelines reframing section

Markku Kojo <> Tue, 22 June 2021 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C683A26F0; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N2Hfyvwz8_E8; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04E103A26F2; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-DKIM: Courier DKIM Filter v0.50+pk-2017-10-25 Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:17:13 +0300
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type; s=dkim20130528; bh=2HjMMVvYP7RYdPrLx Oac4Rt1pNgFIirbEJYMV27mZuI=; b=WMt5e8Z3tB7Lt+DEhAMQ6fsbPTwFbo95g AWORAphsgbR5Ie8wcwB91BllcW8Ifj8yVbw7KiiqcmCRktGv1eckVFNNtVpGoo6P RNLWHgxJ8phb3L+h4egBtgO2WbBO2ITGR/pi1ajiKsUjT7QGmN/ezZp8WMx/AM9q WuaE8DySiA=
Received: from hp8x-60 ( []) (AUTH: PLAIN kojo, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-GCM-SHA384) by with ESMTPSA; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:17:12 +0300 id 00000000005A01BC.0000000060D1F0E9.00002C51
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:17:12 +0300
From: Markku Kojo <>
To: Jonathan Morton <>
cc: Bob Briscoe <>, David Black <>, Joe Touch <>, Markku Kojo <>, "" <>, "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] ecn-encap-guidelines reframing section
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:17:21 -0000

Hi all,

just one additional comment on using Reno formula an 'p' in it.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Jonathan Morton wrote:

> A quick aside:
>> On 24 Mar, 2021, at 11:48 am, Bob Briscoe <> wrote:
>> {Note 1} For instance, the average proportion of marked packets is 'p' in the well known Reno formula,
>>     cwnd_avg = sqrt(3/2p)
> This assumes that "p" is a uniform probability; that the likelihood that one packet is marked is independent of whether its neighbours are marked.  A mechanism that refers specifically to marking consecutive packets breaks that assumption.
> Reno's actual behaviour depends more accurately on the relationship between the interval between RTTs containing at least one mark, and the actual RTT.

Right. Translating this to Reno formula jargon: p is not the average 
proportion of marked packets but the average proportion of congestion 
signals, where packets marked on the same RTT are considered as a single 
congestion signal. Thereby, p defines the average interval between two 
marks in different RTTs (after removing any additional marks on the same 
RTT). Once we know the path end-to-end bandwidth-delay product and the 
average amount of queuing defined for the bottleneck AQM, we can 
calculate the average RTT to be used in the "full" formula (the target 
queue length and the drop/mark method the AQM applies affects the queuing 
delay and thereby e2e RTT).

And, when thinking of a typical TCP behavior in CA, the typical interval 
between two pkts that an AQM marks for a flow is several RTTs (unless 
there is relatively heavy congestion due to notable number of competing 


> - Jonathan Morton