[Iccrg] CUBIC I-D feedback from an implementor's perspective
lastewart at swin.edu.au
Thu Oct 30 01:28:51 GMT 2008
I've been working on and off independently implementing and testing some
of the proposed congestion control algorithms in FreeBSD as part of our
NewTCP research project . So far, I've completed a functional HTCP
and I'm currently working on CUBIC with others planned as future work. I
have some feedback for the HTCP and CUBIC draft authors based on my
implementation experiences. Below are my current feedback notes for CUBIC.
All comments below relate to draft-rhee-tcpm-cubic-01.txt
Units for variables
The correct units for variables appear to be ambiguous. (For example, I
presume cwnd is in pkts, and time t is in seconds - but I couldn't
find that clearly stated in the I-D.)
For example in the BSD stack, cwnd is calculated and used in
bytes, and time is calculated in terms of kernel ticks. However putting
cwnd in bytes into the CUBIC equations produces results that I believe
are demonstrably incorrect, whereas using pkts seems to produce expected
results. Similar problems arise using ticks instead of regular time.
It might even be worth providing equivalent functions for both pkt and
byte based cwnd so that the implementor doesn't have to think too hard.
At the moment, I'm just converting to pkts by dividing cwnd by smss, but
it's not ideal. And again, similar issues exist using ticks for time.
Convention for "beta"
The I-D does not use the convention that beta represents the
multiplicative decrease factor (i.e. cwnd = cwnd * beta on congestion).
It instead uses beta in the following context: cwnd = cwnd * (1-beta) on
It took me a while to wrap my head around the I-D's use of the term
"multiplicative decrease factor" for beta in this context. I would
suggest that it would reduce confusion and implementation errors to
either refer to beta in the more usual context i.e. make it 0.8 and
modify the I-D's equations appropriately, or change the variable in the
I-D to be called something else.
If the community feels the draft's use of beta is appropriate, then
perhaps we should standardise the meaning of "beta" somewhere for people
writing/reading congestion control related documents to cite/refer to so
as to avoid each draft having its own interpretation.
There appears to be overloaded meaning given to some variables. For
example, as I read it, "beta" in equation 2 is supposed to be cubic beta
(0.2), but equation 3 refers to a generic beta and in equation 4 beta
represents reno beta (0.5).
I would strongly suggest that the draft explicitly differentiate the
references to beta (e.g. use "cubic_beta" and "reno_beta") and the
values they should take.
Parentheses in equations
I'd suggest adding parentheses to equations (e.g. 3 and 4 in particular)
to completely rule out any possibility of ambiguous interpretation. For
example with equation 4, is the last term [(3*beta)/(2-beta)] * (t/RTT)
or is it (3*beta)/[(2-beta) * (t/RTT)]?
Explicit help for implementors
I'd suggest adding a new (sub)section somewhere in the document
focusing on implementation related discussion.
Calculating the cubic root of a number in the kernel is a non trivial
task because you need to be able to do it using fixed point math.
I've nutted out a way to do it but I think this is something algorithm
authors should be helping people with in the I-D. For CUBIC, we could
standardise some code fragments that do the necessary calculations and
insert them as examples in the I-D to give implementors a starting point.
TCP friendly region
The TCP friendly region (section 2.2) concept is still fuzzy for me.
During which periods of a congestion epoch would one expect the TCP
friendly region to actually have any effect?
I think this concept and its importance needs to be explained more
clearly in the document.
Why is the fast convergence heuristic so brutal in it's attempted
detection of new flows starting up?
Having the hard check of "is cwnd < cwnd_prev" in place seems far too
black and white, particularly in BSD where cwnd is in bytes, so a 1 byte
difference will trigger the more aggressive backoff.
Perhaps a "is cwnd < 0.97*prev_cwnd" or similar check would soften the
edge just a little bit?
I suspect I'll have more feedback as my implementation effort proceeds,
but the above is a good enough starting point for discussion.
More information about the Iccrg