On 10/9/2015 11:52 AM, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Dave in particular wanted some specific reasons this is a bad idea as
>> presented. Here is my summary.
>>
>> The rest of this discussion should happen on TCPM.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> ---
>>
>> 1) *you* shouldn't be using a mechanism that destroys information for
>> others
>>
>>     whether the timestamps or ACK stream spacing has any
>>     meaning is for the receiver - not you - to decide
> 
> The temporal spacing is already lost.

You don't know that won't be restored downstream.

>> 2) *you* don't know where your mechanism will have an impact
>>
>>     those clumped ACKs might be spaced out further
>>     downstream
>>
>>     even if you have a rule of "I'll only gather 3 ACKs",
>>     you can't know if another box - including yours -
>>     downstream might gather those composite ACKs further
>>
>> 3) you claim this might be safe *if* AQM is widely deployed
>>
>>     but *you* don't appear to be making that determination
>>     *before* deploying your approach
>>
>>     also, AQM is in the opposite direction, and unless
>>     you deploy this with enough state to track the fact
>>     that your box is seeing traffic in both directions,
>>     you shouldn't be turning it on at all
> 
> this discussion started in the context of AQM. AQM is needed in both
> directions, it's not a one-direction only thing.

Needed, but you don't *know* it's deployed on both path directions. The
reverse path could be taking a different route.

>> As others have noted, the SHOULD of ACK requirements can be exceeded,
>> but only with careful consideration of the potential impact. That
>> careful consideration does not consist of "I turned it on and I didn't
>> hear anyone scream".
> 
> that's not the only consideration here. There's also the consideration
> that the ACK stream is already badly distorted.

It's not distorted at all - it's queued up and waiting its turn.

> As it turns out (as discussed on the other thread), the RFC actually
> recommends what we was proposed (with some additional nuances)

Assuming that you know what you can't know and assuming that you don't
care whether your actions affect what others have a right to assume.

Joe

_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Reply via email to