Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE
Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com> Fri, 20 November 2020 19:38 UTC
Return-Path: <g.white@CableLabs.com>
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 BF8AB3A0F9D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:38:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cablelabs.com
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 yhAE63rcOPqE for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam12on2126.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.244.126]) (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 D17D23A0F5E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:38:45 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jlWwONrC9WosuMwzx4Cq1AY1y/Il5VDx8EPDP+wx/l5LJ2i/LEAyASMv4sCCeyudkOBYSi42Tya8hyKQwvYKKQxYYPUOZ0RIgEgVDasAhMu8tGMZkh+mPEr/9pUA9sB2PDwTHmnvixfIsa24L5askQ7ZDHCuWrm8mAEB17c2jMZYB9vOYaUNI7k6PXmLVo07EUsvdXwZhH2cGKWIsjAjOHorfmFM3fb9l4EXJuK2xzQLyAvNEDjCcOzoKcvrJPmBgf1MK2GWXAVrq30UXPPl7VmlW5ObtUraODTipaiCbfNR7pQzcoyWOt5x1q59tAiIsGr+Xn2G9KxULPh2SJu+7g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zbuH2Uv5LJWXL/qLxddkgD3EMqVolueM07WIyjr3Nvo=; b=KyTqpkamNZLFWGgfKZ9e6KqdPXft8/goKvxMJbvgDoTXavEoQAPqQeu+0cU5ODtTb9C9bLTs7/erSH/mCJkuEqcF71P+Odm7XKrj5IlHm0i0nYxcB3cYG9//qD4kDk/kA/OT0T1kbhpDVbMXtnvjH4+h+nJK6ICnT8gAzayuXvydxeFsbrWaAESgw/Ivg2Q058mYJkRwYvZTxtwd9Nl2GBCtcLTmJV1+0Dk9oPpekuF0Ti5HX4SiUdReX96W8LPiPaBfho6e/2Xk1VZuw89LCLZVENHin4ZZbMxr6VOwgx5E6p/D99r41LjyQl39w77H4m3hBA1WwZBSgKv85DXcig==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cablelabs.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cablelabs.com; dkim=pass header.d=cablelabs.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cablelabs.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zbuH2Uv5LJWXL/qLxddkgD3EMqVolueM07WIyjr3Nvo=; b=xYtzKZfI6jphkiUgM0FxAchxPFMUaeB9hU5RV6wOaxGxX+qJf/5rltoasfgIDyxGUIIt9PYO7BOXjG/WadeLicBNF8G0WaVKA0e9WkVh1ViZyYZ6NyIe7J8qwsk+LzURw40XGGwKCWz7i/D/hqYTH57j5Iz4r8IIGClP8klVCM14gonzqZapbyZELSnvSZZUjuO1EzLMF3LOxZbjCb/Cqpo/uVqpYCyF3x4BUetNd2tDBuey8JU3Fj8itTnOL9zsWWf/liZxdbXtJ8I4nVv3sizu2HxOuzWotVJlJesF4ZfAjlLcEDes+TpNSQccwan/EnY6Di4ozYORmnwjwd6l7w==
Received: from CY4PR0601MB3713.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:910:92::10) by CY4PR06MB3157.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:910:53::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3564.25; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:38:44 +0000
Received: from CY4PR0601MB3713.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e03a:dba6:a8d0:17e0]) by CY4PR0601MB3713.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e03a:dba6:a8d0:17e0%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3499.034; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:38:43 +0000
From: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike=40swm.pp.se@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE
Thread-Index: AQHWv0HOUPstmFzKkUWz2LSzTZYv1qnQ9aWA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:38:43 +0000
Message-ID: <1837E430-3CC1-4C90-A1B4-EAC5062FB609@cablelabs.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011201413100.26384@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011201413100.26384@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.42.20100402
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=CableLabs.com;
x-originating-ip: [98.245.82.7]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6ce24761-9728-431e-fe6c-08d88d8be40c
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR06MB3157:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR06MB31577CDDD7A1E7D77737D00BEEFF0@CY4PR06MB3157.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: yN7OUET2JY2IUc9LxguzTJGw6oOtGwUaYO9zZ1IuW3JVoEDSwc4SYDh8Xa9neog/m7N/lDDJn/2Yf/vJBkly8+HRhd4buKxSeNqzs7G9JaddfIqsQ6OCJ44Mjn02V7MQMPeMS9WYrojgGmgmTBeXM+BSXRDdZJBdwiFcUqKLldq4tLamAgo8Jr28tDJng2vwnzG0KRCHcLxcZNcp/bTiG+/nKWCw28TAEXMLGIzpQfUzX+jJ/lNryPobshy1lIPikpXpD4W5wv2lKof1h2/Dbo7tga7fP2RFiYJMGkR0MAxCxvvcV8tF3hYtwDFycZsXrosBBZFPseCehH0V/zphVPObKn1+Jl4tz5yivMmOpn6MRxbCbLeZZ0npuvTeaBExL5tGPb162eJ5GdiBoz21i6w7nvyxtx28guPxDn2oMwXmkT9R0z3BXLmbb4qHiCgdSrh+kLCSIO/teGJql1A3Cw==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:CY4PR0601MB3713.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(136003)(366004)(39840400004)(376002)(396003)(8676002)(83380400001)(166002)(478600001)(2616005)(6486002)(110136005)(5660300002)(64756008)(76116006)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(966005)(66446008)(71200400001)(186003)(316002)(66574015)(6512007)(36756003)(86362001)(33656002)(8936002)(6506007)(2906002)(26005)(9326002)(85282002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1837E4303CC14C90A1B4EAC5062FB609cablelabscom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: cablelabs.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CY4PR0601MB3713.namprd06.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6ce24761-9728-431e-fe6c-08d88d8be40c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Nov 2020 19:38:43.8312 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: ce4fbcd1-1d81-4af0-ad0b-2998c441e160
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: w5F7vSfWAhdHkBCU6zgLcXx09vk4FHpfZLkBsXammJ66J8MBx4p73HlOvUtk6fDxtvX7c8CPIS+sQcRo+Ameng==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR06MB3157
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/XB6Gi1HHd7c7grikk4_57ESv9do>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE
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: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:38:48 -0000
Hi Mikael, On your point about L4S in non-ECN FIFOs, I agree that these will dominate in the Internet for quite some time. But, I don’t believe there has been any evidence of lack of safety for L4S-compatible CCs in those bottlenecks. It is, in fact, a requirement in the ECN-L4S-ID draft that CCs respond to loss in a Reno-safe way. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-12#section-4.3 What has been argued is that the current TCP Prague prototype CC responds to loss *exactly* like Reno, and so is outcompeted by Cubic in these bottlenecks (see the pfifo results in https://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests#network-bias ). If you attended Bob & Koen’s talk in ICCRG (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-iccrg-prague-congestion-control-00) you saw that they mention (slide 9) “faster than additive increase” as an aspect that is not currently included in the Prague CC. They also mention (slide 15) “Integration with BBR/Cubic instead of Reno” as a possible area for others to contribute. -Greg From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike=40swm.pp.se@dmarc.ietf.org> Organization: People's Front Against WWW Date: Friday, November 20, 2020 at 6:34 AM To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org> Subject: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Hi, I'm trying to catch up on the work has been done, but I thought I'd give some thoughts / feedback on what I see: https://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests "L4S transports experience intra-flow latency spikes at RFC3168 bottlenecks, particularly with the widely deployed fq_codel" FQ_CODEL isn't widely deployed. Yes, it's enabled in the linux kernel but very seldom at the bw chokepoint of the connection. I do not agree with the above statement at all. Thus any benchmarking vs FQ_ anything is invalid. What's mostly used today are typically simple FIFOs, sometimes diffserv enabled with multiple FIFOs. This means the tunnel argument against any FQ or non-FQ AQM is invalid. I also doubt we'll see widely deployed FQ going forward because of the cost of doing this in hw (and most devices are hw accelerated). "Deployments of fq_codel The fq_codel qdisc has been in the Linux kernel since version 3.6 (late 2012) and is now in widespread use in commercial routers (e.g. Ubiquiti EdgeMAX and UniFi products)" This is misleading. Yes, EdgeMAX supports FQ_CODEL if you turn off hw_acceleration, bringing down the performance to 10% or less of what the hw acceleration yields. I do not agree that it's in "widespread" use. I'd gladly take data to prove me wrong, that FQ_CODEL is in widespread use at Internet bw chokepoints. I'd be surprised if it was enabled on more than 1% of residential connections. On to L4S. Now, taking above statement and looking at what L4S is doing, for 1-2 decades going forward L4S enabled transport will often encounter FIFOs, mostly without ECN capability at all. They need to be proven safe in this operational reality. From what I can see, this is still not the case? Going forward: In order to progress to a solution, we need to have participants agree on what the world looks like right now, what's doable in the next few years, and what's required to handle existing/near term reality. SCE proponents have to stop arguing that we'll have FQ_ anything near term, or that this is in wide use. It's not. L4S proponents need to prove that their proposals are safe in a world of FIFOs, and accept that this is going to be a reality for years to come. AQMs aren't deployed in a hurry, we're talking many years to deploy on the wider Internet. We're spending the last bit in the IP header and we'd better get it right. In order to do that, I'd like to see realism and pragmatism in the reasoning. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
- [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] feedback and thoughts L4S / SCE Pete Heist