[Tsvwg] Minutes of TSVWG at IETF 56
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com> Fri, 11 April 2003 17:51 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22816 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:51:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3BHwE814424 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:58:14 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3BHvK814390; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:57:20 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3BHuL814329 for <tsvwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:56:21 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22767; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:49:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1942h7-0004bG-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:52:09 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1942h7-0004bD-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:52:09 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=psg.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1942h6-0006yj-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:52:08 -0700
To: tsvwg@ietf.org, minutes@ietf.org
Cc: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
Reply-To: mankin@psg.com
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:52:07 +0000
From: Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Message-Id: <E1942h6-0006yj-00@psg.com>
Subject: [Tsvwg] Minutes of TSVWG at IETF 56
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
These are due today it seems, so send corrections to the list, where our archives can serve as the record. Thanks to Spencer for the note-taking. Minutes taken by Spencer Dawkins ================================== Transport Area Working Group TSVWG ================================== Allison Mankin and Jon Peterson Scott has been replaced by Jon as AD but will still be active Kireeti - Status of RSVP change document RSVP has become very popular, people outside IETF want to change it this causes difficulties for interoperation - how do we prevent breaking RSVP? recent code points RFC from completely outside IETF with a lot of pushback give RSVP IANA considerations that it's never had before previous considerations draft had expired give three code points (normal use, experimental use, first-come-first-served) really need a "standards action" code point, too also need PS RFC to initiate behavior changes is this important? Andy Malis: this is absolutely needed - IANA is working with no guidelines whatesoever even first-come-first-served space is broken Bob Braden is now the gatekeeper and things are confusing Bob Braden has suggested name-based sand boxes - not much reaction - do people care? Allison: IESG suggested names not reflect owners for maintainability Philip Matthews: IS-IS has the same issues and is dealing with them in the same way Split between class numbers and C-types? will be discussed on TSVWG mailing list Jukka Manner - Localized RSVP (LRSVP) end-to-end QoS is rarely available backbones fast and reliable access networks are bottleneck congestion points using a small enhancement to RSVP that can coexist with RSVP Local Indication and Expedited Refresh bits allow coexistence Open issues - addressing, asymmetric routing, interworking with end-to-end RSVP, security Steve Casner: each end signals its own access network? A: end-to-end is preferable, this is fall-back Steve Silverman: is "local" on a LAN? A: "local" access network Tom Hiller: 3GPP does things almost identical to this not documented in RFCs because never leaves walled garden John Bennett - IP measurement OAM problem problem statement measure ping, traceroute, etc. can't do this because ot ICMP blocking, flow-specific routes, hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end want to measure increasingly specific things (take HTTP redirect into account, etc) can't figure out which hop is the problem need a new protocol that can be processed in fast path - no control "polite" protocol passes through firewalls, NATs, etc. "IP Measurement Protocol" - IPMP Echo, IPMP Information Request proposed by Andrew McGregor a couple of years ago bennett-00 changes adds redirection, port numbers, TLVs mcgregor-00 and bennet-01 also make changes to previous proposal Peter Neuman - would like to measure downstream with standardized protocol Q: also have a draft we'd like to be considered A: looking at general level of interest first Sally Floyd - draft-floyd-tcp-highspeed-02.txt Quickstart revision is also out for comments adding a new response function for TCPs on links with very low error rates revision adds discussion of TCP with multiple connections Scalable TCP from Tom Kelly Adds a section on choosing parameters Adds discussion on P-MTU, window scaling, etc. Shows simulation results from Evandro de Souza in a drop-tail queue? would work better with small P Need feedback from community before Experimental RFC Limited Slowstart proposal is also related Other changes? Higher dupack threshold, etc. TCP Quickstart isn't ready to be Experimental RFC - needs more research Allison: what is the complexity? A: maintain a table instead of always cutting in half Eric Nordmark: current reference implementation uses scaled math cutting in half is easy, cutting by 22.9 percent is harder A: could approximate by shifting Matt Mathis: uses integer arithmetic Reiner: why don't smaller congestion windows get to use this? A: need to pick targets for response functions for divergence from standard TCP motivation for picking is that TCP is successful now, so small changes Matt Mathis: Fairness on the Internet is because of standard response function can't let everybody dork with their response function - no fairness Q: Not good at translating from drop rates to technologies A: starting at 10**-6 packet loss rates, High Speed TCP seems to make a big difference Mike from Digital Fountain: have you tried parallel sessions of HSTCP? A: yes, pointed to from web page, so far it looks fine congestion network would be better off if you're using HSTCP Joe Touch: use RSVP for SYN, because we're in slow path anyway A: maybe, but not yet Joe Touch: point solution for 10-gig Ethernet? more dynamic than you're thinking about A: can you talk about this on the list? hum to adopt as WG item Ethan Blanton - draft-blanton-dsack-use-02.txt building from Atlanta discussion solved real loss during recovery what do we do now? Randall Stewart: perfectly safe, move it forward hum to adopt as WG item Ethan Blanton draft-blanton-tcp-reordering-00.txt can we recover our congestion window? need to prevent massive burst at window reversion time need to prevent spurious fast retransmits presenting four schemes of increasing complexity most conservative scheme is most complexity need more data, would like to hear alternative schemes spurious RTOs is explicitly out of scope Matt Mathis: there are lots of heuristics hidden in real TCPs that will cloud your results Mark Allman: should this sort of algorithm be Experimental? They're conservative Allison: some RFCs are really experiments, some are really for immediate use Sally: Experimental after one real implementation? Allison: We use "experimental" to mean several different things Sally: Texas A&M proposal could be added to this work Mark Allman - draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-00.txt No oppositions based on the list traffic, right? splitting this work out from Limited Transmit less resistent to reordering, but ... Spencer: worse cases are bad in macro sense but effect on user may justify this Sally Floyd - Proposal for newreno standardization Newreno is widely deployed and is still experimental - move it forward? please identify any major fixes this would require (but not other ideas/changes) Reiner Ludwig - Redundant data in TCP? TCP-friendly with quotas on good and bad bytes? please feed back to the mailing list Randall Stewart - draft-stewart-tsvwg-prsctp-03.txt Phil Cochran - SCTP bakeoff at UDelaware June 1-8 (unofficial) PR-SCTP has been around for a while - the first service designed by the spec provides "timed reliability" "abandon" stale chunks of data still make congestion window (downward) adjustments only enabled if both sides understand it! three independent implementations, all interop tested seven additional implementations coming Mark Allman: making it easier to throw useless data into the network? should be considered the way we're considering Reiner's proposal Randall: will construct a scenario on the list David Black: this is the opposite of Reiner's proposal Randall: better than I could have said it Allison: noticed spec made possible to change the lifetime after it was set, suggests interesting race conditions, API complexity in name of flexibility/power... Phil: lots of good issues... agree that if you can change lifetime values, this creates race conditions larger question is about creating lots of new services two parts of proposals - on the wire part is what we need to standardize policy is internal to a node Randall: realistic, can't change this in internal implementations today Mark: more motivation on the list? Randall: unreliable stream didn't simplify anything (per previous connectathon) Mark: couldn't you simplify per-stream, not just per-packet? Phil: good points for application writers, but these are service definition API issues Randall - I could do what you're saying in the current implementation David Black: setting timeouts is valuable in some scenario Chairs: review to be continued on list. _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
- [Tsvwg] Minutes of TSVWG at IETF 56 Allison Mankin
- Re: [Tsvwg] Minutes of TSVWG at IETF 56 Phillip T. Conrad