Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic

Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> Thu, 30 March 2017 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ddolson@sandvine.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C671294E4; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LDKozEs43Nl; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63DA2129489; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:06:50 -0400
From: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, "Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com>
CC: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "AQM IETF list" <aqm@ietf.org>, "FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com" <FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic
Thread-Index: AQHSpDHALX//dtLVFUCWt7nl7FFE5KGpuUqAgABZiACAAztmAIAAA2ew
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:06:48 +0000
Message-ID: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E987056E514@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com>
References: <9ddba389-e368-9050-3b14-aa235c99fcb8@bobbriscoe.net> <D4FDD717.2636D%ropan@cisco.com> <77D4FC66-C99F-49D0-BB73-27A0CEF70F31@gmail.com> <99a7b737-fc3c-efd0-b6c8-d71a089b7de8@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <99a7b737-fc3c-efd0-b6c8-d71a089b7de8@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.196.10]
x-c2processedorg: b2f06e69-072f-40ee-90c5-80a34e700794
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/4CEGd0xzZdw7k8ozLRegW0BaMp4>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:06:53 -0000

While reviewing PIE, it might be worth revisiting my comment here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ifkBe6uvME5Nqm-J6ulZWlooBxo
The second part was never answered to my satisfaction.

I believed I had found a bug:  I said, "I think there are a variety of traffic patterns that can allow 'p' to meander around in non-zero space even though the queue is nearly empty"

Maybe you've addressed this, because I think it was due to a heuristic.

I'm much in favor of removing the heuristics on control systems; thanks.

-Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Briscoe
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:47 AM
To: Jonathan Morton; Rong Pan (ropan)
Cc: Greg White; tsvwg IETF list; AQM IETF list; FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic

Jonathan,

Picking up on an earlier point you made about avoiding heuristics by ensuring the underlying algo is sound,... that's precisely why I'm going through all the (9) PIE heuristics...

For PI2 we removed all but 2 and it worked the same or better than PIE in all our tests. I have been assessing each of the other 7 one by one for reinstatement. So far I've rejected 6. I think I can reject this last one by making the sampling time of the base PI algo dependent on the max link rate. Then when the queue goes idle, the base PI algo will decay drop down to zero no slower than the queue drains, without needing this extra heuristic. But I need to check that's realistic.

We will be writing all this up (probably in an update to the PI2 paper - I don't think the IETF PI2 spec is the right place for a critique of heuristics that it doesn't use).

Our aim is a completely sound AQM in a few lines of code and a few operations so it can be implemented everywhere with minimal resistance from developers due to performance concerns (e.g. cheap ethernet switches, cheap home gateways, carrier-grade equipment for thousands of users, etc).


Bob

On 28/03/17 07:25, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
> By all means, avoid dropping packets when the queue is actually empty - that is, when you’re delivering the last packet in the queue.  In that case, there is no congestion to signal for.  But there really is no need to have any complex state-switching logic for that.  If your underlying algorithm is sound, it will naturally decay to zero packet drops if the empty-queue condition persists.
>
>   - Jonathan Morton
>


--
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm