[Iccrg] Re: Iccrg Digest, Vol 81, Issue 8

[Arjuna Sathiaseelan]

this sounds great actually..probably reduced to 3/4th cwnd on ecn marks?

arjuna
On Oct 27, 2012 12:06 PM, <iccrg-request at cs.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Send Iccrg mailing list submissions to
>         iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         iccrg-request at cs.ucl.ac.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         iccrg-owner at cs.ucl.ac.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Iccrg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Agenda (Michael Welzl)
>    2. Why don't we stop treating ECN and loss similarly? (Michael Welzl)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:20:13 +0200
> From: Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no>
> Subject: [Iccrg] Agenda
> To: iccrg list <iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk>
> Message-ID: <9C0FF8B7-8A75-4599-9980-BBA7B76842F0 at ifi.uio.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hi,
>
> There is still space on our agenda - currently, it looks like this:
>
>
> ICCRG agenda, IETF 85, Atlanta, Monday, 5 November, 13:00-15:00, Salon A
>
> Rong Pan: "A new algorithm for dealing with buffer bloat", 20+10 min
>
> Nestor Michael C. Tiglao: "Transport layer caching mechanisms and
> optimization", 20+10 min
>
> Open discussion about the applicability of more precise ECN signalling
>
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:26:59 +0200
> From: Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no>
> Subject: [Iccrg] Why don't we stop treating ECN and loss similarly?
> To: iccrg list <iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk>
> Message-ID: <920D98EE-EFEB-47E2-879C-84999F258771 at ifi.uio.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's an idea, inspired by something Bob Briscoe posted to the TSVWG
> list recently in a discussion of draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions.
> However, this possibly stupid idea is my own responsibility alone  :-)
>
>
> According to RFC 3168, senders must react to ECN just as if packets
> had been dropped. This is to maintain fairness between ECN-compatible
> and non-compatible flows.
> Because of this requirement, AQMs cannot ECN-mark packets more
> aggressively than it drops packets from non-ECN-capable flows - else
> ECN-marked flows would be at a disadvantage.
>
> We have seen various non-standard congestion control behaviors can co-
> exist reasonably well with standard TCP in practice. If it was
> possible to have a milder congestion reaction to ECN-based reaction,
> it would also be possible to ECN-mark packets earlier, leading to a
> bigger advantage for everyone using ECN. And none of this is possible
> when we have the "treat an ECN mark just like loss" rule in place.
>
> Hence, my question: to incentivize ECN usage and enable better
> behavior when it's used, shouldn't we remove this rule?
>
> Note that this is not even about a more fine-grain interpretation of
> ECN feedback - it's more like an intermediate step.
>
> I'm curious what everyone thinks... am I missing something?
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iccrg mailing list
> Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg
>
>
> End of Iccrg Digest, Vol 81, Issue 8
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/attachments/20121027/1850b1df/attachment.html