[aqm] draft-khademi-alternativebackoff - lightly loaded, high BDP paths

Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net> Tue, 13 October 2015 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <simon@superduper.net>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C5E1B2F75 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 1mDF2TCZeKGv for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from masada.superduper.net (masada.superduper.net [85.119.82.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A371B2F71 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from block9.public.monkeybrains.net ([162.217.75.161] helo=[192.168.128.6]) by masada.superduper.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <simon@superduper.net>) id 1ZlpxW-0006yM-8m for aqm@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:09:09 +0100
Message-ID: <561C75D3.4050102@superduper.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:09:07 -0700
From: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040503010305010401070800"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/4rs07uQSuDvlOKO_n42kVJJtmlE>
Subject: [aqm] draft-khademi-alternativebackoff - lightly loaded, high BDP paths
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:09:14 -0000

I was very interested to see this draft discusses a problem with AQMs

AQM schemes like CoDel and PIE use congestion notifications to
    constrain the queuing delays experienced by packets, rather than in
    response to impending or actual bottleneck buffer exhaustion.  With
    current default delay targets, CoDel and PIE both effectively emulate
    a shallow buffered bottleneck (section II, [ABE2015  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-khademi-alternativebackoff-ecn-01#ref-ABE2015>]).  This
    interacts acceptably for TCP connections over low BDP paths, or
    highly multiplexed scenarios (lmany concurrent TCP connections).
    However, it interacts badly with lightly-multiplexed cases (few
    concurrent connections) over high BDP paths.  Conventional TCP
    backoff in such cases leads to gaps in packet transmission and
    underutilisation of the path.

I think it wold be good to add some discussion of this effect to the 
draft on evaluating AQM algorithms. In many access network scenarios the 
paths will be lightly loaded, and sometimes higher BDPs will be 
experienced. In these cases it's good to know that the AQM is not 
hurting your experience.

Simon