Re: [tsvwg] SCReAM (RFC8298) with CoDel-ECN and L4S

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ingemar,


> On Mar 10, 2020, at 11:07, Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> For the future studies we will only focus on L4S as the scope is to study the performance gain that L4S give for instance for AR/VR, gaming and remote control applications.

	[SM] How are you going to "study the performance gain that L4S give[s]" if you do not compare it with the best of class alternatives? I am truly puzzled.

> Flow aware AQMs with RTT estimates as metadata in the packets is outside the scope as it would require packet inspection, which is not feasible if queues build up on the RLC layer in the 3GPP stack.

	[SM] Fair enough. What is this comparison intended to show us then?

As far as I can see you paired an application designed for 1/p-type congestion feed-back with an 1/sqrt(p)-type AQM that was also set for sub-optimal RTT and latency target for the test path. And lo and behold, the application does "better*" for the 1/p-type AQM (with lower latency target; I assume that  L4S ramp-marker (Th_low=2ms, Th_high=10ms) was carefully selected to match what SCReAM expects). IMHO that simply demonstrates, that in communication it pays if sender and receiver of a symbol (CE here) assign the same meaning to it.

But that can not be it, sohat am I missing here?

Best Regards
	Sebastian


*) Assuming one buys into your definition of better, in which (instantaneous) queueing delay is valued over video quality. From a network operators perspective that seems a valid position




> 
> /Ingemar
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: den 10 mars 2020 10:45
>> To: Ingemar Johansson S
>> <ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Ingemar Johansson S
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] SCReAM (RFC8298) with CoDel-ECN and L4S
>> 
>> Hi Ingemar,
>> 
>> thanks for posting this interesting piece of data!
>> 
>>> On Mar 10, 2020, at 09:02, Ingemar Johansson S
>> <ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> I recently updated the readme on the SCReAM github with a comparison with
>> SCReAM in three different settings
>>> 	• No ECN
>>> 	• CoDel ECN
>>> 	• L4S
>>> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=63019d27-3f884737-6301ddbc-0cc47
>>> ad93e2a-489fa99c3277fb8a&q=1&e=5aab95a7-4aab-4a64-99a5-
>> 5b55606e303b&u=
>>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FEricssonResearch%2Fscream%23ecn-explicit-
>> co
>>> ngestion-notification
>>> 
>>> Even though it is more than a magnitude difference in queue delay
>>> between CoDel-ECN and L4S,
>> 
>> 
>> 	[SM] So, in this simulations of a 20ms path, SCReAM over L4S gives ~10
>> times less queueing delay, but also only ~2 less bandwidth compared to SCReAM
>> over codel. You describe this as "L4S reduces the delay considerably more" and
>> "L4S gives a somewhat lower media rate". I wonder how many end-users would
>> tradeoff these 25ms in queueing delay against the decrease in video quality from
>> halving the bitrate?
>> Could you repeat the Codel test with interval set to 20 and target to 1ms,
>> please?
>> 
>> If that improves things considerably it would argue for embedding the current
>> best RTT estimate into SCReAM packets, so an AQM could tailor its signaling
>> better to individual flow properties (and yes, that will require a flow-aware
>> AQM).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> it is fair to say that these simple simulations should of course be seen as just a
>> snapshot.
>> 
>> 	[SM] Fair enough.
>> 
>>> We hope to present some more simulations with 5G access, and not just
>> simple bottlenecks with one flow, after the summer.
>> 
>> 	[Looking] forward to that.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, the SCReAM code on github is freely available for anyone who
>> wish to make more experiments.
>>> 
>>> /Ingemar
>>> ================================
>>> Ingemar Johansson  M.Sc.
>>> Master Researcher
>>> 
>>> Ericsson Research
>>> RESEARCHER
>>> GFTL ER NAP NCM Netw Proto & E2E Perf
>>> Labratoriegränd 11
>>> 971 28, Luleå, Sweden
>>> Phone [phone]
>>> SMS/MMS [phone]
>>> [e-mail]
>>> www.ericsson.com
>>> 
>>>  Reality, is the only thing… That’s real!
>>>      James Halliday, Ready Player One
>>> =================================