#ls2 (irc2p) | #ls2 Proposal 168 review here 8 PM UTC Tues. Dec. 3

orignal zzz, the irony is

orignal that I'm a client of alfa-bank ))

orignal they are my broken on russian stock market

orignal zzz also I would like to discuss acks

orignal I don't like a way how it's now and have some better proposal

orignal basically

orignal 1. acktrough should have oacket number stating that all messages before acked

orignal 2. ranges after it: acks and nacks

orignal acnt is not needed

orignal it's basially last range with zero nacks

orignal in this case we use direct rather than reverse iterators

orignal if no gaps only acktrough is presented

zzz re: alfa, good luck

zzz re: acks, thanks for the comments, I expected you to have some

zzz here's what I was thinking:

zzz it's a simplified version of what is in QUIC

zzz in the common case, there are no nacks

zzz so 4 byte ack through and 1 byte acnt is a nice, small, 8 byte block. we want the ack block to be as small as possible

zzz if we had a range instead of acnt, it would be 9 bytes

zzz how would we do 'all messages before are acked' ?

zzz back in 30 min

orignal so ack through means "I ack all message before ack through and ack through"

orignal <orignal> so ack through means "I ack all message before ack through and ack through"

orignal basically acnt is not a problem

orignal reverse order is

zzz please explain

orignal current logic

orignal I have an ordered map of sent packets

orignal and unconfirmed

orignal I receive Axk block

orignal I have to find first packet with packet num <= acktrough

zzz ok I get it

orignal then I have to interate in reverse order until I find packetnum < acktrough - acnt

zzz here's how I think of it

orignal then I have to do the same for all range

orignal two issues

zzz the ack block is just an encoding

orignal 1. reverse iterators is always less effecient

orignal 2. not every data structure support it (single-listed list for example)

orignal go ahead

zzz so, the ack block is an efficient way to encode a bitfield

zzz starting at the highest number, then keep going for as much "room" as you have in the packet, or to some max number of ranges

zzz so when I get an ack block, I "decode" it to a bitfield

orignal what bitfield you are talking about?

zzz and then process it bottom-up, in the "forward" order

orignal don't we ack packets?

zzz yes

zzz what I'm calling a "bitfield" is just a concept, a collection of bits that are set

zzz so I first convert the ack block to a bitfield, going top-down

zzz but then I _process_ the bitfield bottom-up

orignal so you store unacked packets and bitfields?

zzz yes

orignal ok. so you do two passes

zzz yes, a quick pass top down, then the slower pass bottom up to look for unacked packets

orignal that's waht I do now

orignal my proposal however assumes one pass

zzz the "bitfield" is implemented in the SSU2Bitfield code I linked you to on monday

orignal I take acktrough

orignal find first packetnum that hight then acktrough delete all packets before

zzz isn't that what acnt does (if no ranges) ?

orignal acnt goes in opposite direction

orignal backward not forward

zzz oh, you want a 'lowest acked' field instead of highest?

orignal yes

orignal that's my idea

orignal so acktrough gurantees everything below is acked

orignal and we can ack milliion packets using single acktrough

zzz see the thing is, we can't do that

zzz because we don't "remember" a million packets

zzz the design is to remember only the last ~256

orignal I mean in genaral

orignal the whole idea is once I receive an ack block

orignal I insttantly delete all remebered packet with packnum less then ack trough

orignal regardless how many

orignal using a single opration

zzz but there's no guarantee of that

orignal why?

orignal when I set acktrough in Ack I say then everything below has been received by me

zzz let me give an example:

zzz say I want to ack packet 1000

zzz but I'm missing packet 999

zzz and I only have room in the data packet for 8 bytes: block header (3), ack through, and acnt

orignal I send acktrough=998

orignal and range 1 1

zzz no room for ranges in this packet

zzz only have 8 bytes

zzz the most important thing in any ack protocol is to send the _highest_ ack

orignal if so don't confirm 1000 until you get 999

zzz no, because maybe 999 wasn't important, could have been an ack-only packet. Also, individual packet numbers aren't retransmitted

zzz I may never get 999

orignal then use acnt to show lowest packet

zzz so it would be ack thru 1000, acnt 0

zzz the important thing is you _dont_ assume anything below that is acked

zzz anything below that is neither acked nor nacked. it's nothing. no information

zzz the most important thing to ack is always the highest packet numbers. if there's more room then add ranges

orignal as I said

orignal ackrought - acnt as lowest number works for me

orignal without ranges

orignal if I have ranges it means I have to find lowest number first

orignal and then go from that

orignal meaning two passes

zzz yes, in the usual case, without ranges, it's easy

zzz but that's why it has to be encoded "backwards", because the highest numbers are most important, and we add ranges if there's room, for more history

zzz and below the lowest number is simply "don't know"

zzz not acked, not nacked

orignal fine than

orignal assume ranges is rare case

orignal and we can do second pass

zzz I usually don't see any ranges

zzz often some nacks after about 100-200 packets

zzz the way I do it is I have my bitfield. then I do 'construct an ack block with X ranges maximum' from that bitfield, based on how much room is left in the packet

zzz my ack processing isn't very efficient right now either, but I have some ideas

zzz save the last ack block received. If the next ack block is the same, ignore it

zzz or compare the last ack block to the new one, and only process what's different

orignal two passes is a good idea anyway

zzz this is MUCH simpler than QUIC. If I proposed what QUIC does you'd be asking for my head

zzz but yeah, think of ack block as "efficient encoding of most recent ACKs". There's lots of flexibility on how you "decode" and/or process it

zzz yeah first pass is super simple. just add up ackthrough + (every byte after that). Now you know what the beginning is. Then proces it however you want

orignal no problem

orignal I know what to do now

orignal but my question is

orignal should we use ranges at all?

zzz yes, from the example above, if I got 1000 and not 999, I can't ack 998 or below at all

zzz see QUIC RFC 9000, section 13.2.3

orignal can't you send two ack blocks?

orignal one for 1000 and another for 998?

zzz you could, but then the 998 one is missing the most important info, which is the highest number (1000)

zzz it's also less efficient

orignal fine than

orignal let me implement ranges

zzz just to explain a little further:

zzz without ranges, we don't have NACKs at all

zzz ack 1000 (only) doesn't say that 999 is missing

zzz ack 998-900 doesn't say that 999 is missing

orignal well I would keep resending 999

orignal until I get ack

orignal or number of attempts

zzz yeah but you don't ever resend 999. you resend the _contents_ of 999, in packet 1001

zzz so it's not like TCP. we need to send acks in a way that assumes there will be gaps, you don't ever go back and "fill in" the gaps or stop the congestion window

zzz so if 999 is out-of-order, the gap will be "filled" when I get it

zzz but if 999 is lost, that gap will always be there, until the bitfield "shifts up"

orignal please explain

orignal I thought I always resend 999 as is

orignal just an encryoted packet

orignal that's important

orignal say I send 999 and store it

orignal then I don't see ack and need to resend it

orignal do I resend with current packet num or 999?

zzz you resend with current packet number

zzz the packet number is the nonce for chacha, never reused

zzz so you don't store _packets_ for retransmission, you remember the _contents_ of the packet and retransmit the contents in a new packet with a new packet number

orignal what's wrong to resend a packet as is?

zzz the new packet will possibly have a different ack block

orignal it will be considered as ordinary out of order UDP packet

zzz it's also inefficient to store packets for retransmission

orignal why?

zzz just remember that packet 999 had fragment 1 of i2np message x

zzz you don't want to store both the i2np message and the packet

zzz this is also from QUIC

zzz and SSU 1

orignal I'm not going to store i2np message at all

orignal just packets I have sent

zzz but you store the fragments, don't you?

orignal no

orignal as I said I store packets

orignal say fragment 2 is in packet 1000

orignal you receive 1000 but not 999

orignal you store this fragment 2 and wait a paekt with fragment 1

orignal then you receive packet 999

orignal you decrypt it and take fragment 1

orignal what's wrong in this system?

zzz sure, on the receiver side, that's right

orignal on the sender I store packet 999

orignal if I don't get ack for it I resend it again

zzz but on the sender side, you store the fragments for retransmission, not the packets, same as in SSU 1, and same as in QUIC

zzz that's the way the spec is written now

orignal please tell me a reason why I should do it?

zzz ok

orignal my way breaks nothing

zzz - retransmitted data looks different to an on-path observer, can't tell it's retransmitted

zzz - retransmitted data gets an updated ack block sent with it, not the old ack block

zzz - you only retransmit what's necessary. some fragments could have been already retransmitted once and been acked

zzz - you can fit as much as you need into each retransmitted packet if more is pending

zzz - much more flexible

zzz eot

orignal so basically DPI

orignal then I should store payload without padding

zzz DPI is the first one, yes. But the whole design is from QUIC, where packet numbers are not reused

orignal fine. I will store payload only

zzz yes, that's the design. Been a while since I read through this part of the QUIC spec

zzz basically the same as SSU 1, except for "remembering" what was in what packet

orignal I don't remeber what was there

orignal anyway thank you for clarification

orignal will fix it

zzz :)

zzz can I ask you about RI fragmentation?

zzz did you see what I posted above yesterday morning ^^^ ?