IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Todays Meeting material for RTT-independence in TCP Prague

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Sat, 29 February 2020 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.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 DF3023A0EE5 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:56:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 NB_z3iMfbdlq for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0BDA3A0EE2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 01TGuqkd017804; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:56:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 01TGup2u017803; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:56:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202002291656.01TGup2u017803@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <9D299172-7681-4D40-82DF-52EF0BC43337@gmx.de>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:56:51 -0800
CC: "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/HLe40x3I0IvCWDryj9guxJGBW60>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Todays Meeting material for RTT-independence in TCP Prague
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: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 16:56:57 -0000

Koen, Sabastian,
	I have been following this thread and find a statement made that I have first hand information about that contridicts a statement made here and I wish to inject that into the thread.

Regards,
Rod

> Dear Koen,
> 
> thanks for the information. More below in-line...
> 
> > On Feb 27, 2020, at 17:30, De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Sebastian,
> > 
... much good text removed ...

> > Similarly a lot of people don't even care at all about RTT unfairness.
> 
> 	[SM] Yes, but quite a lot of people will start caring once you roll-out L4S; if it will noticeably affect their achievable goodput in the non-LL queue with competing LL-queue traffic. That is my point, the issue is the observed unequitable sharing behavior over short paths (think home network to data center, pretty much one of the main use-cases for L4S), not RTT-dependence per se. In a sense you just made my point for me.

In my un official but informative survey of "why ECN is not turned on at X" one of the answers I received was "because of the RTT unfairness it causes",
this was a very large content provider of the internet.  So though it might be true that "a lot of people" don't care about RTT unfairness it only takes a few large people to care and this becomse an issue.  I can state that at least one "large entity" cares.

So we (ietfers), IMHO, must not dismiss things based on this criteria that people do not care about RTT unfairness.

> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian
... much more good text removed ...

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email