-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 203
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
unclear definition of persistent congestion #3937
Comments
Consider the case where the sender receives an acknowledgement for packets from 5 to 10, and the period between 1 and 4 was longer than 3*PTO. IIUC, this is clearly a persistent congestion. The original example is strictly worse than that, and I think it would make sense to declare persistent congestion in the case too. In other words, I think that 3 is incorrect. That said, I do not have a strong opinion regarding if we should specifically recommend either of 1 or 2, considering that the logic (or the time threshold) being used to detect persistent congestion is merely a recommendation. |
FWIW, we had some discussion regarding the design rationale behind persistent congestion in #3875, and it seemed to me that it was mostly about the amount of time the sender cannot make any progress. |
#3939 seems also related |
I think we should keep it simple, which IMO is do nothing. |
Summary: There's a lot of discussion about this in the WG. See: quicwg/base-drafts#3937 quicwg/base-drafts#3939 quicwg/base-drafts#3875 Our approach is very conservative, which may mean we are declaring persistent congestion mor frequently than we need to. This seems to work okay, but put a TODO to remind us to experiment with this in the future. Reviewed By: yangchi Differential Revision: D22699664 fbshipit-source-id: c0b73fc48a9f3dd141cada95eeb8493d17322702
This is fixed in #3961, and is an editorial fix. |
A sender sends a tail of 10 packets, packet number 1 to 10. It now receives an acknowledgement for packets 5 and 10, which establishes the loss of all other packets.
It's not clear how to perform the check for persistent congestion now. Several options come to mind:
In an offline discussion, both @mjoras and @goelvidhi expressed preferences for different options here. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here, but at least the draft should be clearer on what exactly establishes persistent congestion and what doesn't.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: