Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-00.txt
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Mon, 16 June 2014 20:19 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042D61A01F9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 2Ic1AQhaHZJQ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7D101A01DD for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id n15so4715020wiw.5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zp6DWF92iRitdBQ4n3dXEJIUIEuXygTvMLhbi5VhgwE=; b=n6TEM9hxReTDs7ODjOlDIXOvONt19jQ7UMSkuXL5WEoHtMcDHTFZP3M5D6Sd6D3WAG xg3v6Ulv00V0oiKexmG17fIn/JEUbMVTjrMHw4B00zfReK94s3pPZSUzjkuC/GtSEQVF +wsdwcQu8rgw4LXgCC1UWpd6p8cVxmNmBme4psH7Hmrn6J0KmZa0tw6gQPCzwhDjrp7B bWBUGcvJY+D/avZQewcnWVrXRigqukZN9wacOCxA5uxD18/bkCObHqU5f3gHxUmJec8M ymYymFCygAQXczcR0Ywd+/cxIqi2tuhbdF79TUnJeplOOEBh4MGcIiM7j07x1deSpja2 fseQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.1.242 with SMTP id 18mr32366283wjp.22.1402949948329; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.21.211 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ad02ba362a108256cbdeb4ad8aaea534.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <20140614101442.22657.40901.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <AACCA748-FB2D-4FBB-84B8-0F19BE533F3E@netapp.com> <CABFReBoTeQD9gr=z3iuhvZk-+Ee5z0o6mV=Qrac-8HBm7odxRQ@mail.gmail.com> <fe9a3a9b5416e87508ad46d3af71abd5.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CABFReBpxXiRBbVbSup2e9Dur3tmkSvdo-5Kq-cGrWCoXfXJEeA@mail.gmail.com> <b2060c55f1259da9f2ff6468b1af3f30.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CABFReBr2E1iT0jeBZaPxNzuvZbY1x6YtQZ4wsh4=uxBgoKJ1YQ@mail.gmail.com> <ad02ba362a108256cbdeb4ad8aaea534.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBrQVnxnm+1+2H5X7C8AfMLWRg6pVPr9yGfVCn3W_nSf2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a82144ed53704fbf9bdd9"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/_lTavrc6y9GCHqAgP6SydiHRlLg
Cc: "<tsvwg@ietf.org>" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 16 Jun 2014 20:19:17 -0000
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:12 PM, <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > In-line > > > Inline: > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:34 PM, <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> See-in-line > >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:33 AM, <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I'll respond on the RTT query - since I wrote that section. > >> >> > >> >> I'm, not sure what you are saying, are you saying there are methods > >> that > >> >> determine how to respond to congestion that take less than one RTT, > >> or > >> >> simply the group RTT isn't an issue - maybe I'd see better with an > >> >> example? > >> > > >> > > >> > Right, the whole concept of RTT is irrelevant here since there is no > >> > message round trip from receiver to source and back. The CC > >> determination > >> > (channel selection/combination) is determined by the application > >> without > >> > upstream signaling at all. That was the point of the last sentence in > >> the > >> > previous paragraph which came from section 2.1 of my > >> > draft draft-shepherd-multicast-udp-guidelines-01.txt > >> > > >> I had some doubt about that part: Let me see if I can explain what I am > >> thinking: > >> > >> - For example, using ALC, I'd have expected loss due to congestion at a > >> bottleneck to result in each receiver downstream of the bottleneck in > >> reducing the group membership for the higher-rate streams, but the > >> required rate reduction takes a little while to propagate up the (PIM) > >> multicast distribution tree, and the source only ceases when there are > >> no > >> further subscriptions (or timeout). > >> > > > > We're already gone off track here; RTT is just a measure of time. It > > doesn't itself directly refer to any form of CC. Join latency is not RTT. > > WEBRC coined the term MRTT in an attempt to tie join-latency to the > > concept > > of RTT as it applies to CC. > > > I don't agree - even though there may be no "RTT timer", the largest round > trip time of any receiver in the ALC group is still the parameter that > controls the responsiveness of the CC mechanism. Almost right.. It's not any round trip time. It's join/leave latency. I'm not arguing the mechanism, I'm arguing the term. We need to be clear - there is not control RTT like TCP here. > > > >> Whatever, ALC would take at least a RTT to the furthest receiver (with > >> loss) that has subscribed to the group, before the source has a chance > >> to > >> reduce the load on the bottleneck. > >> > > > > I don't believe ALC sources change rates at all. There is a rate/group > > profile which the receiver application side selects. > > > I should have been clearer, the rate at which the source injects traffic > into the congested bottleneck queue. The rate at which the ALC source > feeds this queue varies as the subscription to higher-rate groups subside. Sure, but this is a topology dependency and no application will be able to respond to where congestion occurs, only if/when they see congestion directly. Just like TCP - it has no clue where congestion occurs. It just reacts to local detection. Greg > > > >> I know you could also immediately react to loss (aka NORM), but then > >> that > >> would prevent heterogenous operation where one part of the group can > >> receive faster than others. This reaction is more conservative from a CC > >> viewpoint > > > > > > ..which goes into the description of various CC mechanisms and departs > > from > > any applicability of RTT. > > > > Greg > > > > > Gorry > > > >> > >> Gorry > >> > >> > Greg > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Gorry > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Thanks Lars. Much of this text is taken directly from my previous > >> >> > draft, draft-shepherd-multicast-udp. Can you please add me to the > >> >> authors > >> >> > list of this draft? > >> >> > > >> >> > Content notes: > >> >> > > >> >> > Section 4.1: > >> >> > > >> >> > Congestion control mechanisms for multicast may operate on longer > >> >> > timescales than for unicast (e.g., due to the higher group RTT > >> of a > >> >> > heterogeneous group); appropriate methods are particularly for > >> any > >> >> > multicast session were all or part of the multicast distribution > >> >> tree > >> >> > spans an access network (e.g., a home gateway). > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > The above isn't relevant for application based CC mechanism. In > >> fact, > >> >> an > >> >> > application-based mechanism may often operate faster than any RTT > >> >> > dependent > >> >> > mechanism. I think we should either remove this paragraph entirely > >> or > >> >> > restructure it to make the point that application based CC operates > >> >> > without > >> >> > dependency on RTT. > >> >> > > >> >> > Greg > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Gorry and me have started to put together an update to RFC5405 in > >> >> light > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> the recent discussions. Comments welcome. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Lars > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > >> >> >> > Subject: New Version Notification for > >> >> >> draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-00.txt > >> >> >> > Date: June 14, 2014 at 12:14:42 GMT+2 > >> >> >> > To: Lars Eggert <lars@netapp.com>, Godred Fairhurst < > >> >> >> gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, > >> Lars > >> >> >> Eggert <lars@netapp.com> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > A new version of I-D, draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-00.txt > >> >> >> > has been successfully submitted by Lars Eggert and posted to the > >> >> >> > IETF repository. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Name: draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis > >> >> >> > Revision: 00 > >> >> >> > Title: UDP Usage Guidelines > >> >> >> > Document date: 2014-06-14 > >> >> >> > Group: Individual Submission > >> >> >> > Pages: 36 > >> >> >> > URL: > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-00.txt > >> >> >> > Status: > >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ > >> >> >> > Htmlized: > >> >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-00 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Abstract: > >> >> >> > The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) provides a minimal > >> >> message-passing > >> >> >> > transport that has no inherent congestion control mechanisms. > >> >> >> > Because congestion control is critical to the stable operation > >> of > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> > Internet, applications and other protocols that choose to use > >> UDP > >> >> as > >> >> >> > an Internet transport must employ mechanisms to prevent > >> >> congestion > >> >> >> > collapse and to establish some degree of fairness with > >> concurrent > >> >> >> > traffic. They may also need to implement additional > >> mechanisms, > >> >> >> > depending on how they use UDP. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > This document provides guidelines on the use of UDP for the > >> >> >> designers > >> >> >> > of applications, tunnels and other protocols that use UDP. > >> >> >> > Congestion control guidelines are a primary focus, but the > >> >> document > >> >> >> > also provides guidance on other topics, including message > >> sizes, > >> >> >> > reliability, checksums, and middlebox traversal. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > If published as an RFC, this document will obsolete RFC5405. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time > >> of > >> >> >> submission > >> >> >> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at > >> >> tools.ietf.org. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The IETF Secretariat > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
- [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-e… Eggert, Lars
- [tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification f… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… gorry
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Greg Shepherd