Re: [tsvwg] rrul yet?

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Mon, 10 February 2020 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 B75BA120A90 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 08:05:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.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 QnxI4MR0hkCz for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 08:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 0B9FC120B48 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 08:05:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1581350728; bh=i/xZcAYA4eP9X6RY9W/BsIVGQepVbYT472t67EVFsGg=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=DptPrFvTvhX3k6JxcwHxri1GWw+D8QlzbbhHKekKVIYPY+qYofnAePQ+z3Ds3jTb5 A9o8o5Rkko1yFq6NYtTz8tPGZKNz78lKOQb5ZRMGYHvumQWdKBlaN/6zS8s9TYS+ed Jq1ueybJdgj/6uogABrbJjxy5/f2A5U62LVrd2T4=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [10.11.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MhD6g-1jfS4A1BII-00eJRc; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:05:28 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <77BDEE23-E07C-4CED-A554-4774E66B1778@heistp.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:05:26 +0100
Cc: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>, tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7D22D3D0-98BB-4EAF-B99A-3712C057EEBE@gmx.de>
References: <87y2tctowj.fsf@taht.net> <77BDEE23-E07C-4CED-A554-4774E66B1778@heistp.net>
To: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:wfMfdGeZRAOoAuprB6fwa8jxss3eQkndtXA0TBpzrH25hQl0cPE 6+HTsiCpIpNPrtsir6ZxQNFPOqgR1WonydQ7m9iqwclk6rhslJZp2m17GbCBAbh0wid5TSR ABMOc4h4z9XRihvS9JmHmNodV/PJaN4qIwyCSZjA5mAbDWR6+jVZRjTKBkcRvBm1mgqIN1V jevllTs1AmHxxE59yztYg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:UNHNkKBBUCo=:9DTj39KhUmzv++sKvXSQbE EY2dAEqz2VN29/t2dY+BlJJ4IU730wGopiCmSZlLmO/lVudH8N3hm9z+8fl0Dc6kcTthGJtXy kYvffkS06TD47lBQ9ANnLao0ONplY1MC8AOHOgGxPtztewexozRxhyp4UrlesunAMMPvEp7gW f+NA6UUec27wBAbXIrFK33+T+jF71CmkiTT6VFDE+2tfE13+0aEp7DOsayqgWOXH8561VkAWW AcRZlGu+ydL/nBsEK+ctLX/lYvi1NYYdl0WFuugzYAuFfW15R64UYGhZaSm1Isx8vPYXJfa/M EmLldTzVTLf7WKU4codpgreoTln/IAYKHIRh6I7H+utIvyrCqF0XjZl51+DJNVvQ7dQWHODGJ qaurNbIqj8mdsnwBR0o1lq4pph2mhp5j8la82U9F1KHYooOPyJJs7mMlu/5ujcCIqWvFV5Uf4 DZ0HA72IYxw5GwojQXQPTqcEsSBgdN3t4JnPpF0EXCc4vTxHGvdg3k2eqIv28jUg1v7D5BdII Ab5iiU3L+k8dcWVQPXScvujOAftdQSS5ZPXWIQvF165V+on1JkDXa+ufaR3+aYhzXewb/SGTF CmJYBE3Qt367lqStduU5sIcgtvSZMFbUhhYhUVEYREfOo8SjA/eSriovEze2n1IeBE/79K2nS wmuVFV62z9f2fTqQGaNfOkBOoZ7wNGxZ65JhYsXuhw3wOIbVTiztADuIhtRKdO9jgT/MlhYkb qhZ92i5ntbBf0pD1B5Beb4WTJIa80hgwIu2d4D77fVoog81IG+yF7hKqxWR+gmsSHLRzAnfda AH/FPnDe3I+xKWe/M+S2IA26+v7bkiJANPAGkfS7nkymPWy0Ec9SYAmupEsMkDHLDU29csBfR 3NFcPpFph+ULPA3Zv09ZUrXM0tA984V3ddVErRONeaKSX3l7D8669K34X4vkqzep7pflCc9rI uku4ac10yVkqnbHjY3uJDb170RnLN1tOsbiZTbdYnw5UjySHTRENn7j/S5SJbxIdLc7pJKE6N wGHjU8gPNzrTXpFFXYkLY7Tb6Sac9VC3cx42Td0GZLLfMQ2RnLZ9kYJ5v3b5J8812Z0TSmZ8K uIVOVtTL10Lwc4Wa3OZIvASFXWZGiGxPFOxy+GPt4/lapXswY24GhLH8EaUtsrGWS8t/1QxP+ 3Ul3VuEyfbO45ihaq52Kq2R5SC4li4F03hbfMTaTil4l8hk7bSmtFb6JwVZlsdtWH7EboQA5B IDfon47nyMDFIdXXR
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zisDVWqk1ut0PAhT8Aow7_wMjUM>
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:05:45 -0000


> On Feb 9, 2020, at 17:18, Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.

Okay, any information on how L4S' dualq and TCPPrague deal with the same load?

Best Regards
	Sebastian