Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [was:A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?]
Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Mon, 22 March 2021 14:51 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 B5F9E3A1720 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.774
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 bv6m-70BrM7q for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk (mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk [185.185.84.51]) (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 E53163A1718 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:51:26 -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=3lkID+GRveTt+2YARlCcukff6uYeru63+SZ6ecKQtT8=; b=MJOYf5y1oQLkI/Hrq8AstbbqY ngZbzc5mAr3pPLsorqZ5VNH5+eMLuYCAW2cVvZrQQp7fkfD6asWHcoHhcvPpG/RDpHyy2UefiN2M+ TtYfB+8JBcTqFdUmeijtFeq5Qy6kgqxbixtgnG1r1kJl+l52IYdqlaIRWmGgqHjaW1T+YC2GtazoN SWDVk892yizYsE/vGl0+bQZ/RYDfxab4al21E4Iqj4RQ7f9wUTzwTmBluKvuwmQ8DWeQQSSk1v0O1 KTg3i8M2Rzbit0x3zuHGBVJkoS/FRjlvOQKfSqgDkA3JnAq2f/hgTCYjwWRAL6jPdCuZnM2k+gCM/ ubF63Z3pg==;
Received: from 67.153.238.178.in-addr.arpa ([178.238.153.67]:46106 helo=[192.168.1.11]) by ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1lOLtt-0004bg-Q4; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:51:25 +0000
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <9d807812-78a7-6066-5c5f-6f2b02507439@bobbriscoe.net> <457E3F32-CE3D-4B15-A067-C476DC1F5434@gmx.de> <eb9a54c8-3883-0bb2-d213-fdbe2707cafc@bobbriscoe.net> <136274F6-5B94-49EC-8338-9A6D81E400D2@gmx.de> <79c1c388-f35e-d6f9-9a9d-6ad28230a85a@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <dca05f58-0552-e4d7-ed8d-31e472d31341@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:51:24 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <79c1c388-f35e-d6f9-9a9d-6ad28230a85a@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------81C552975C0787E8D7874A84"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk
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: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Qwjc9jP5KbQa7t6NLaRdUAldvWw>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [was:A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?]
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: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:51:30 -0000
Gorry, In my original question on this thread, this wasn't about which TCP to compare against (when Sebastian said that, I didn't correct him). My original question was about how to describe the fall back behaviour in response to a loss. The draft currently says: ...a scalable congestion control MUST react to packet loss in a way that will coexist safely with a TCP Reno congestion control [RFC5681 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5681>] (see Section 1.2 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-14#section-1.2> on Terminology for definition of Reno-Friendly and Appendix A.1.3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-14#appendix-A.1.3> for rationale) When I wrote that I had no intention of it meaning "Fall back to Reno." I had in mind that Cubic is considered Reno-Friendly, so I had figured that choice of words would not preclude falling back to something like Cubic. However, a number of survey respondents were concerned that it might preclude their favourite congestion response, with less sensitivity to loss than Reno. Hence the quest for a clearer form of words. Bob On 16/03/2021 12:14, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > On 16/03/2021 09:39, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> in the cited response Bob proposes to define TCP Reno as the >> reference TCP all TCP-friendly protocols need to be compatible with. >> I had a quick look at what TCP CCs are actually in use, and according >> to wikipdia, all major operatig systems, Windows10 (since 1709, >> 2017), MacOs (since Yosemite, 2014), Linux (since 2.6.19, 2006) >> converged on CUBIC as the default TCP congestion control algorithm. >> Given that data, I propose to not enshrine YCP Reno's behavior as the >> current applicable reference, but instead TCP CUBIC. >> For the L4S drafts that does not change much, because the dualQ's >> unfairness towards non-L4S-CCs does not seem to care for the exact >> way a CC is NOT L4S, > <snip> >> Best Regards >> Sebastian > > > This seems an editorial matter that we should simply get correct. The > IETF has a PS specification for Reno. RFC 8312 is informational, but > TCPM recently adopted draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-00, targeting > Informational status. > > My own (personal) suggestion is that we use text that says a "CC > specified in a standard's track RFC" and give refs to both Reno and > Cubic as examples, although I'd be interested in others views also. > > Gorry > -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Ian Swett
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Ian Swett
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [w… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [w… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Lloyd W
- Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [w… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [w… Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [w… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [w… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [w… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significa… Bob Briscoe