W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013


From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:31:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeG4ew88sWs6OL+PQXbqSANE6smRTJuVBzo8ppkLVPYtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@skype.net>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Which is worse, starting with 1 connection with a cwnd of 32, or starting 6
connections each with a cwnd of 6?


On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com> wrote:

> In the original SPDY draft (and the current HTTP2-01 draft), there is a
> TCP CWND setting exposed:
>          5 - SETTINGS_CURRENT_CWND allows the sender to inform the
>          remote endpoint of the current TCP CWND value.
> It is not clear what the client is supposed to do with this information.
> There was a follow up post from Mile Belshe (
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/spdy-dev/XRkL7FlIOW4)
> in which he indicated that the client could persist the CWND stored by the
> server, and the server could later user it to "warm start" connections to
> the same client. This can potentially cut transfer time by several RTTs.
> I have several concerns about warm start, and if that is the only use for
> SETTINGS_CURRENT_CWND, then maybe we should not have the setting at all.
> First, if a cwnd value is persisted at the client, then, after the
> connection ends, it needs to be gradually decayed with time, and completely
> discarded if the client changes networks (e.g. from wifi to 3G etc.). This
> adds additional complexity to client implementation.
> Second, the server has to take any value reported by client with a large
> grain of salt, since it cannot trust the client to correctly decay/discard
> window. The client may even inflate the window in an attempt to get
> "better" service. So, at the very least, the server needs to check
> timeliness, which means it has to maintain additional state (e.g. remember
> when it last sent CWND to this client). This complicates server
> implementation.
> Third, The clients who implement this may be able to grab a higher share
> of bandwidth, which is unfair to legacy clients (e.g. normal HTTP clients).
> If the server wants to start with a higher initial cwnd, then that's
> already being discussed:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-08.  I am not
> advocating for that proposal, but at least it is better than warm start,
> since there is no state to maintain and clients have no influence.
> In general,  SETTINGS_CURRENT_CWND violates the basic layering principle.
> So, unless there is a really good reason to keep it, it should be removed.
> Jitu
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 18:32:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC