Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based

[Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Naeem Khademi <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
> Agreed only in general terms -- but what would be considered as "packet
> burst" and how would it be defined? This will probably have a subjective
> answer e.g. one can argue that a size of TCP sawtooth of data is a burst
> and therefore we need a BDP of buffering for that (that's what had actually
> happened implicitly over the past decade). On the other hand, the
> definition of the "burst" may likely to correspond to the application
> generating it (e.g. video frames, IW10, etc) and therefore its size (and
> even pattern) is application/transport dependent somehow.
>

There's one more case...the incast problem.  The sources themselves may not
be "bursty" but in a high port count switch, you could have 10's (or more)
ports sending traffic to a single output port at around the same time.

Perhaps it is useful to add a description of what we mean when we say
bursty.

Anoop

Anoop