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

[Preethi Natarajan <[e-mail]>]

From:  Naeem Khademi <[e-mail]>
Date:  Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:05 AM
To:  Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>
Cc:  <[e-mail]>, Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Preethi Natarajan <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based

> 
> 
> Below is my personal opinion, but hopefully Fred can clarify this better based
> on the AQM recommendations draft:
> 
> "applicability of AQM to all types of networks/switches" => "yes"
> 
> "applicability of *any* AQM to all types of networks/switches" => "no"
>  
>> Perhaps AQM cannot help this, but hopefully it won't hurt.  Trying to do
>> fancy things with small buffers is challenging.
> 
> AQM will most likely to help from data centers to the access links, and so on.
> But we may possibly need different AQMs for different network scenarios; The
> fact that an AQMs should be auto-tunable doesn't imply that it can be applied
> everywhere and we may need different auto-tunable AQMs specifically designed
> for different networks (ideally better if we could use fewer of them and they
> could work everywhere). I hope I'm not wrong.
>  

Again, please hold on. Even if its personal opinion, I would state facts
backed with evidence instead of "hopes", since the community's thought
process is at stake here.

>From the preliminary results we've seen, PIE has been able to address data
center issues quite well. There is no evidence thus far why PIE's control
law with auto-tuned parameters cannot adapt to data center or other network
environments. 

Given that, its too early to "hope" that different network scenarios need
different AQM schemes. Of course, different network environments may choose
to deploy different AQM schemes for various other reasons, which is not the
point of discussion here.

Preethi