Re: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?

["LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Bi-directional traffic is mentioned in section 3.1 Topology and 4.5 Traffic Mix, but not further detailed.

I suggest to add at least one scenario in section 4.5, where both directions are congested at the same time, e.g. two or more counter propagating bulk TCP transfers. Only in this scenario the returning ACK packets undergo a reasonable queuing delay (and jitter) from the opposite direction queue. If I'm right, Dave Taht repeatedly mentioned that scenario as critical. And he is right, I tried it out.

Wolfram


Von: aqm [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Naeem Khademi
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. März 2015 16:18
An: [e-mail]
Betreff: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?

Hi all

Any comments on the newly submitted update as draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01 is welcomed. In the new version, we have tried to address the issues brought up on the ML as well as the feedback we received at the IETF-91 and have tried to incorporate them all. We have also clarified several issues in the text making it more straightforward and less ambiguous with regards to the "guidelines" and "scenarios". We would like to have this document discussed on the ML preferably before the 9th March cut-off date as well as during the period prior to IETF-92.

Cheers,
Authors