Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows
Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org> Thu, 01 August 2002 21:32 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15489 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA24125 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA22578; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13391 for <tsvwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:05:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cougar.icir.org (cougar.icir.org [192.150.187.76]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09730 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cougar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cougar.icir.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g71I5WX03216; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:05:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from floyd@cougar.icir.org)
Message-Id: <200208011805.g71I5WX03216@cougar.icir.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:05:31 -0700
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
>My read was somewhat different. While some were interested in exploring >this (IMO, 'academically'), most felt that because it wasn't of >near-term utility it was premature for the WG. >My own thoughts, as mentioned at the IETF, are that there are >interesting aspects to this, but I'm uncomfortable with proposing three >modifications at once. That either means there's a more fundamental >problem, or that some of the solutions are marginal, or both. I think that there are two completely separate fundamental problems. One is that the current TCP response function requires unrealistically low packet drop rates to sustain congestion windows of thousands or tens of thousands of packets. The second fundamental problem is that if best-effort connections want to *start* with large windows, then they need explicit permission from all of the routers along the path (in my view). I think these are separate problems, with completely separate time scales, as I thought I made clear in my presentation. That is, it would make sense to me for the HighSpeed TCP draft to be mulled over and then, in the fullness of time, if it is judged by the community not to be unduly dangerous and/or unfair, to become an Experimental RFC, so that more real-world experience can be gathered. The Limited Slow-Start draft is a small, completely optional proposal that, in my view, is useful to allow TCP connections to effectively slow-start up to those very large congestion windows. It is a separate draft from the HighSpeed draft, however, because it could be useful with or without the modified response function of HighSpeed TCP. Just a small piece that, in a reasonably simple and low-overhead way, addresses some of the real-world problems of slow-starting up to large windows. In my view. (I have new versions (with rather small modifications) of both of these drafts on the HighSpeed TCP web page at "http://www.icir.org/floyd/hstcp.html", though they have not yet been submitted to the internet-draft editor. As always, feedback is welcome. The second fundamental issue, of how to get permission from routers for best-effort (or other) traffic to start with a high initial window, is in my view quite separate, more long-term (as is anything involving modifications to routers) and more controversial. I am assuming that the QuickStart draft, which presents one proposal addressing this fundamental issue, will take a completely different path from the HighSpeed and Limited Slow-Start drafts (if it ends up taking any path at all). That is, I am assuming that any path for this would be properly slow and torturous, with separate problem statements, comparisons of other proposals, and the whole bit. That is why it makes sense to be to begin to raise the issue now, rather than waiting until it is a more pressing concern. (Because we are still going through this with ECN, I am reasonably aware of how long these things can take.) Of course, it is possible to propose unified approaches, involving feedback from the routers, that address both fundamental issues. My own view is that there is no *requirement* to bundle the two issues together. Further, I think there is great value in addressing the first issue, of the unrealistically low packet drop rates required to sustain large congestion windows, in a manner that can be quickly and easily incrementally deployed in the current environment only with a small change to the TCP sender, with no changes required at the routers or at the TCP receiver at all. I would go further to say that I think that it is *fundamentally correct* to address the first issue on this level, as the first-order correct answer in fact doesn't have anything to do with feedback from the routers one way or another. That is, in my view, the problem of TCP's requirement for unrealistically low packet drop rates to sustain large congestion windows is easy to fix, and does not stem from any fundamental problems with the current available feedback from the routers. >FWIW, regarding using an IP option to optimistically reserve router >resources. We already have a mechanism for this - RSVP. It might be >useful to explore encapsulating a TCP SYN inside RSVP, where the routers >keep only temporary aggregate state about the reservation (total >allocated over the past 1 second) and the endpoints decapsulate and pass >the request onto the host. Interesting. Though I would think that the IP option would be a better fit for Quick-Start, because Quick-Start isn't using any soft-state refreshing, or asking the router to maintain any per-flow state at all. - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
- [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Wi… Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Reiner Ludwig
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Joe Touch
- Fwd: Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Cong… Reiner Ludwig
- Fwd: Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Cong… Reiner Ludwig
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Reiner Ludwig
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Marco Mellia
- RE: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Black_David
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Arun Prasad
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Joe Touch
- RE: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Black_David
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Mark Allman
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Marco Mellia
- Re: [Tsvwg] Re: HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestio… Mark Allman