Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP
Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org> Thu, 24 July 2003 21:53 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 RAA02464 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:53:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fo0x-0008SB-2s for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:52:43 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6OLqhSr032495 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:52:43 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fo0H-0008LZ-Jb; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:52:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fnzr-0008L9-PA for tsvwg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02397 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fnzp-0002cs-00 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:33 -0400
Received: from cougar.icir.org ([192.150.187.76]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fnzZ-0002cc-00 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:17 -0400
Received: from cougar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cougar.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h6OLoqe3021017; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:50:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from floyd@cougar.icir.org)
Message-Id: <200307242150.h6OLoqe3021017@cougar.icir.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:50:52 -0700
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
>> The proposals in this document are experimental. We believe they >> are safe for deployment in the current Internet, > >Why is this believed? The document states fairly clearly that this sort >of TCP will receive a disproportionate share of a link if competing with >conventional TCP. The same argument could have been made about NewReno TCP, which has been Experimental since January 1999. That is, there are scenarios where NewReno TCP receives a disproportionate share of a link if competing with then-conventional Reno TCP, in scenarios where loss events are likely to consist of multiple packets dropped from a window of data (e.g., in networks with Drop Tail queue management). This is due to Reno TCP's often abysmal performance when multiple packets are dropped from a window of data. The rough consensus at the time, as I recall, was that NewReno was considered safe for deployment in the current Internet even though NewReno flows might receive a disproportionate share of a link if competing with Reno, because we didn't want the limitations of Reno TCP to become preserved in the Internet in perpetuity. I would suggest that a similar situation occurs with HighSpeed TCP. The internet draft about HighSpeed TCP is quite explicit about the issue of relative fairness with Standard TCP, and it is not the case the HighSpeed TCP will always receive a disproportionate share of the link bandwidth when competing with Standard TCP. In the environments where Standard TCP is clearly capable of making good use of the existing link bandwidth, e.g., with packet drop rates of 10^-2 or 10^-3, HighSpeed TCP does exactly the same thing as Standard TCP. Table 5 of the draft shows how the relative fairness goes in environments with smaller packet drop rates: Packet Drop Rate P Fairness Aggregate Window Bandwidth ------------------ -------- ---------------- --------- 10^-2 1.0 24 2.8 Mbps 10^-3 1.0 76 9.1 Mbps 10^-4 2.2 383 45.9 Mbps 10^-5 4.7 2174 260.8 Mbps 10^-6 10.2 13479 1.6 Gbps 10^-7 22.1 87776 10.5 Gbps Table 5: Relative Fairness between the HighSpeed and Standard Response Functions. The arguments of the draft are that the relative fairness of 2.2 with packet drop rates of 10^-4 are not a grave concern, and that for the lower-packet-drop-rate environments with the more severe unfairness, Standard TCP doesn't do very well at making use of the available bandwidth. From the draft: "Our judgement would be that ... the benefits of the HighSpeed response function would outweigh the unfairness that would be experienced by Standard TCP in this regime." But this is being brought to the working group for the group to decide. From later email: >There are cases where it is possible that stock TCP is used over short >fast links and this would be needed for longer paths. Using both on the >same enterprise could cause significant unfairness, in ways that are not >considered a reasonable interim step. I don't believe this. Do you have any simulations or experiments to back this up? If a HighSpeed TCP and a Standard TCP were competing over a congested shared link, and the Standard TCP was over a short fast path, the Standard TCP would induce a rather high packet drop rate in the shared link, and the HighSpeed TCP would be in the space where it behaves roughly the same as Standard TCP. ... >As above, using this protocol over a HS-path might interact very badly >with other streams that share part but not all of the path, e.g., >conventional TCP at high speeds near the endpoints (which have a small >window and no need for this sol'n). Again, if a long-RTT HighSpeed TCP is competing over a congested link with a Standard TCP flow that has a small window and a short RTT, the advantage is more likely to go to the Standard TCP short-RTT flow. As is normally the case when short-RTT TCP flows compete against longer-RTT flows. ... >I'd be more comfortable with a statement that doesn't so broadly endorse >experimenting with it on the Internet as a whole without some caveats, >notably those which appear to be implied. > >I.e., > - off by default > - turned on only on applicable paths or environments > - it is the responsibility of those using this protocol to > determine whether it is affecting others, and when such effects > are found, to disable it until they can be corrected > >These may be implicit in the concept of 'experimental', but if we're >saying it's 'safe', it ought to be clear about under what conditions. Personally, I think that HighSpeed TCP is perfectly safe to be deployed on by default, for anyone/implementor who so chooses. (My own view is that HighSpeed TCP goes to great lengths to position itself on the conservative, incrementally-deployable end of the spectrum. And that HighSpeed TCP is *more* safe than the N parallel TCP connections that are often deployed in fact in its place, in the current Internet in environments where Standard TCP is not up to making good use of the available bandwidth.) But the decision rests with the working group as a whole... - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
- [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Mark Handley
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Reiner Ludwig
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Mark Handley
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Matt Mathis
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Sally Floyd
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] High-speed TCP Sally Floyd