[aqm] Measuring congestion levels
Andrew Mcgregor <andrewmcgr@google.com> Mon, 10 November 2014 23:32 UTC
Return-Path: <andrewmcgr@google.com>
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 174421AD005 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:32:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.972
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hgh_1p4ILXNi for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 429831A8752 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id x69so6210518oia.35 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:32:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wHyZYl3hC7ZXg5GHM+XTAvGCvoJ2ub3LyepaEK42+Qg=; b=BdMvzvXhzeFntK7PK1HQ3Ue+krGCIK7gr57ksZ8UePEWrL6FytsutK62UNaL0TGdDx k861EKH5+mkwgK3yy1hLdPlT3ZnoV/AX19fgptmWHwDmaieVfLZ5P5mpS4i/RKkt4g7Q vSB9uXLcvKI67Kzf56m5n7parCMdvdoccodIDkUMclHydJqG6Qa1TA5La5zTlXo+XE8U ijIt8EqBnxgpMT6cIe97XD3MPBwoyGCn99Fi3GzOJc3TDMEXw59tp4mi3350JlnEK26n iaoBsxfO/6ziqloRFfdUyX/eO4drKBVtYDG1Rm7gtM7Ive/shZwN4iXkPVFEge4E4gLJ iM8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=wHyZYl3hC7ZXg5GHM+XTAvGCvoJ2ub3LyepaEK42+Qg=; b=VKszf+d/vSLotgpZkLfGV2HoQr8iRIed7mFt+O2Awjp9hirlaAa5EFTY7OcOZo0O4E IPrlBBL4kOa/DQk8SMdcyTBmv9Zgzq19u+2vw6L6QHGoWd6sNAKz33DIqqJHf3mHUHL7 hlBo8dpszj49hpgppHAZZZGysulKoYzbhf4WD4BO6dxOzHYkhFTUIjcYf/67wAgeYXvt nEB7jDt73d5l6jkywsnMfEFakC0NbtzX76QRjbHoV7JDdCCwCYIA9l2o/RIYPN5g3RAX O3kSf4FS89HIgLvVK3INNA1NFXUbYZNFgCBINjxw0+2yA2Ls2o3IuM1W9TQmSFNDoF6A zgYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQluxUWm+do1DWEezf5io9kOs4+ptK70nuhIXeZZXwuhPd8f2euQ92qHTbYNS3x/bVu0YypT
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.102.37 with SMTP id fl5mr29818922obb.24.1415662350403; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.67.6 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:32:30 -1000
Message-ID: <CAPRuP3k1PfTUR9p9LnN7Tt4KxW_F6VX+hokEc879Qt40D8ae4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Mcgregor <andrewmcgr@google.com>
To: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines@tools.ietf.org, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0149d17284b0b30507899388"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/A3tFygOao1ZPiaGrhk8aEf9_AAc
Subject: [aqm] Measuring congestion levels
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:32:33 -0000
I think we could derive a congestion level from eqn 26 of http://www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de/Content/Publications/Archive/Bo_IP00_32462.pdf That equation gives an 'effective bandwidth' for a flow or aggregate. These are additive, and congestion can be measured as the ratio between the ingress effective bandwidths and the actual link capacity. In a way, this compares the AQM to a drop-tail queue, which would drop packets at a rate given by eqn 25 in the same circumstances. -- Andrew McGregor | SRE | andrewmcgr@google.com | +61 4 1071 2221
- [aqm] Measuring congestion levels Andrew Mcgregor