Re: [tsvwg] rrul yet?

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> Sun, 09 February 2020 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <pete@heistp.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 BAB13120024 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 08:18:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heistp.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 7h4_9bwgFMaC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 08:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F179C120019 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 08:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id w12so4557782wrt.2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Feb 2020 08:18:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YfralD8S+SEW/SWTGT6pAUwkRF4uZc/i9KcueVMj6dI=; b=bwg9rr0wgtfi7k9a3FSrSCXUirzhts0sdun1BAxFsiSGsQkpYmg7X2/LUkbgrjZU4s jqWGrkwf5RSFIkjlwJuaZn7qhMrwARRfxHJET0TcpCIJ+RDPvDo+rQhVTqrrve8VDh9n 32h0e5+PwA/KCcu0zveSab65wn1flQDDPlgdLna829XVS4iRebl836unYfCZv0PwJRua bVz8h0Ms7RTblfMYQ6re247ja5oxpfjoDK1eimnP5DiJq6DOI+hmdIe5oi4Itnu8m6Mv j8GW/FbEOCHqvP6Q5sDMSSwD5abvYNKYrwQdrn9JryA2Y+4XQoEezidy8oHTA+tNqU5s BGXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YfralD8S+SEW/SWTGT6pAUwkRF4uZc/i9KcueVMj6dI=; b=EbvK2OjhUPJ0pEu+OS9IhaRtnCgYcRiE+M6paNqFpvz63LE5D/NdoYZ9Pk3uaC4mV+ jbfLXtNR5+XYhnOW4gcBvJwvXCG7SwG06N4lOX2ZxVfHmIJqkJJLltKv4t4y5qsy3Rtv /5hcrojqb9zWQaFJSMxeSU3lSkH4I6f85XUmTO7LS0dMa3RnrZ8oiCLSlW3I6UHHCehk XuePlV0ITTeRm08aI74h271VTEmc/e8MDtWhuQygNxXAFmKcOozLfewFxiTsrXpFt/wn 1fwWoUkTr5LidBWisRtDq1lQM+7Ad0HxMOHrHDw2SzvbIkERZP5CDW8rnMa0vegE8FDx HQBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXSB61j4cpb1uHqsKYJaW/LYZir+/TRhTia/dRAwOIxnvaOVgzD OnGGcbTDV8sb9HFEFfjk3DgECgHYSFk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz216bGIpIoewGGI214qKev4/4WLxzFp78CJ3vvaHwlCynRleI3yO/VCmwtmMKSVX6oPEZuGg==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6087:: with SMTP id w7mr8853583wrt.36.1581265111311; Sun, 09 Feb 2020 08:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yoda.luk.heistp.net (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q130sm12608047wme.19.2020.02.09.08.18.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Feb 2020 08:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
In-Reply-To: <87y2tctowj.fsf@taht.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 17:18:30 +0100
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <77BDEE23-E07C-4CED-A554-4774E66B1778@heistp.net>
References: <87y2tctowj.fsf@taht.net>
To: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/vdkYdHXT4AtT6zOSgXMk-Wfwrv4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] rrul yet?
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: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 16:18:35 -0000

> On Feb 9, 2020, at 4:34 AM, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone done a rrul style benchmark yet? (flooding the uplink and
> downlink with mixed traffic, especially one with asymmetric bandwidth)
> 
> Probably my greatest concern with either approach was the gradual rate
> reduction stuff would be too gradual when the return path is inflated
> by other traffic.

We have run rrul in a few different ways, one of which was a 50:1 asymmetric link with higher flow counts in the ‘wrong' direction.

With SCE, the existing multiplicative backoff CE signal is still available as a backstop, when the SCE signal alone either isn’t enough or isn’t being responded to, without necessarily having to resort to drop. In a test like this, you’ll typically see both heavy SCE marking and CE marks as well.