Re: [tsvwg] On packet reordering in 5G
Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Sat, 03 August 2019 13:20 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 A2E1A1201EC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 06:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 FORYL0ZvFJ9W for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (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 6C87812003F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 06:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=SGBrD93SgqqxRg1y7/HedKjzBcyvR5Zq5jugqv9pDrs=; b=YdC9xlsNdWqfc6wqgVqfjev8k f9WqyduuWQ1eHMgvCxG1VOzDvXlrDgxuyvoAHLyX5Hf0HoL0RttGHI5QuD1G9HILl8DY91pt58XmJ iNODJr5+foFDBVxdgJDCI1Gb9mQrO57qRQOMC2YE4cTKPQP6zO7ZAImCeZgtNMuQ+Y0zajpMRfLL8 ld1jRuEs5+rgZSO0pJvE39pfD3pHUZzFHk8MXSVKvRMRoO7xo+IlvKv1ZnSv52D43gBvOkV2MuWdV 1IEJU8iu7Q/jrJiVludpIHZMMY2AvvEKuFLCjbVxGwkeW9ORxbMMRHmgyDR2+La0zXqZQVBu5Ym5A To8qL0WUQ==;
Received: from [31.185.128.31] (port=56902 helo=[192.168.0.6]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1httxh-0003VU-C2; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 14:20:41 +0100
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Cc: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "koen.de_schepper@nokia.com" <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>
References: <HE1PR07MB4425D1A25AAD4C4F65D7330AC2D80@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <e28c7b6f-8bfd-8f86-4724-85f3b98c3536@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 14:20:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB4425D1A25AAD4C4F65D7330AC2D80@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------646AE4F1C7DF97DB8A28F647"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
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: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/LgWxXL-h9jhCxoPw722ejbTlFv0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] On packet reordering in 5G
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, 03 Aug 2019 13:20:50 -0000
Ingemar, Thanks muchly for this comprehensive explanation of the state of the art. I have posed a question for any folks from mobile operators watching this thread - inline. On 03/08/2019 01:06, Ingemar Johansson S wrote: > > Hi > > Long post and I probably missed something.. > > I was asked to clarify various aspects of packet reordering in 5G. I > mentioned a little on this in > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2019-March/008976.html > > I’ll try to keep the discussion around default bearers which are the > typical bearers allocated for general mobile broadband (MBB) > connectivity. Acknowledged mode (AM) transmission is used. > > 4G networks (and before this 3G) ensured in sequence delivery. The > main reason behind this was that the TCP DupACK mechanism was > sensitive to packet reordering. At that time it was likely a sensible > thing to do as most of the traffic was mainly file transfers (and RACK > was not discovered) > > Things have however changed over time. > 1) Increased share of interactive services that require low latency. > In-sequence delivery leads to HoL blocking issues and that often for > no big use as transport protocols are better off to decide how to deal > with out of order packets. This applies especially to QUIC, in which > case many streams may be transmitted over one connection. > > 2) Higher link speeds means more memory is required in network nodes > for the sole purpose of in-sequence delivery. For downlink traffic > this means more memory in UE (User Equipment = USB modems, CPEs and > other cellular devices). One can here argue that if in-sequence > delivery is not enforced in on the RLC or PDCP layer, then it is > likely needed to happen on the transport layer (e.g. TCP). But then > again, for some transport protocols like QUIC where multiple streams > are transmitted over the same connection, then it is likely better to > get the packets delivered out of order. > > First a short recap of the 3GPP user plane protocol stack (GTP stuff > omitted), it goes like > | IP | PDCP | RLC | MAC | PHY | > > Where can packet reordering occur in 5G? > > 1. On the MAC layer: Data from the RLC layer is put on transport > blocks. If a transmission fails, a new transmission of the same > data is repeated (but with a slightly different error control > coding, incremental redundancy is used here to improve the > spectrum efficiency. The max number of retransmits can be for > instance 4, but this is configurable and vendor specific. Up to 16 > HARQ (Hybrid AQR) processes can be run in NR (LTE has a limit of > 8), this means that one chunk of data can be successfully > transmitted before a previous chunk. This causes packet > reordering. In LTE the reordering depth could be 8ms if one > retransmission occurred, 16ms in case the same chunk of data is > retransmitted twice and so on. In NR this reordering jitter is > shorter, both as a result of a faster HARQ processing and shorter > transmission intervals. As an example, with the highest numerology > (0.125ms TTI=transmission interval) the jitter on the MAC layer is > typically less than 1ms. > 2. On the RLC layer: The MAC layer transmission can fail if the max > number of retransmission attempts is reached, this can occur if > for instance the link adaptation (adjustment of the modulation and > coding) is not optimal, in this case it is up to the RLC layer to > retransmit the missing data. > 3. Dual Connectivity: There can be cases where LTE is used for wide > area coverage and NR is used for small cell coverage. One example > is LTE running in the 2.4MHz band with 20MHz bandwidth and NR > running on the 28GHz band with a 100MHz bandwidth. With Dual > Connectivity, the data can be transmitted over both legs. Flow > control is used to portion the data between the two legs. > Depending on the efficiency of the flow control and how the link > bandwidth over the two legs vary, there will be packet reordering > to a smaller or larger degree. I cannot give any example of > typical reordering depths here as this reordering depends on the > flow control algorithms in use. > > In LTE it was up to the RLC layer to ensure in-sequence delivery up to > higher layers. In 5G, this role is moved up to the PDCP layer, one > reason is to make Dual Connectivity easier to implement. > And this makes more sense once the RLC frames map 1:1 to IP packets in 5G. > In addition, it is optional to implement in-sequence delivery. It is > currently not possible for me to say if in-sequence delivery is > implemented as it is vendor specific. > Assuming equipment vendors implement in-sequence delivery, the real question is whether mobile operators will still want it enabled on the default (MBB) bearer. Does anyone (e.g. from an operator) have a feel for an answer? I assume that operators will keep PDCP in-sequence delivery enabled until the prevalence of modern re-ordering tolerant transports combined with the benefits to them outweigh the prevalence and detriments to conventional (3DupACK) transports. This messy compromise is why we took the opportunity to draw a line in the sand with L4S, by requiring sender algorithms that have to be modified to support L4S to also have modern reordering tolerance from day-1. I know there are objections on editorial, architectural and procedural grounds, so I shall be working through that minefield next week, because I've seen a lot of support on technical and pragmatic grounds - the two types are hard to weigh against each other. > For the interested, this book gives more insight to the NR standard. > > https://www.elsevier.com/books/5g-nr-the-next-generation-wireless-access-technology/dahlman/978-0-12-814323-0 > > OK, looks like shameless marketing but I can assure you that the > authors (Ericsson employees) will pay me nothing for this ☹. Still the > book is quite comprehensible and explains many of the design > considerations. > > Hope that this sheds at least some light > Indeed it does. Thank you again. Bob > /Ingemar > > ================================ > > Ingemar Johansson M.Sc. > > Master Researcher > > Ericsson Research > > Network Protocols & E2E Performance > > Labratoriegränd 11 > > 971 28, Luleå, Sweden > > Phone +46-1071 43042 > > SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289 > > ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com > > www.ericsson.com > > You’ve got to live with > > What you can’t rise above > Bruce Springsteen > > ================================= > -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- [tsvwg] On packet reordering in 5G Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] On packet reordering in 5G Bob Briscoe