Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...

"Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)" <shahid.akhtar@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <shahid.akhtar@alcatel-lucent.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 666081A8744 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:53:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 K2fclCtPq8t5 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10DDD1A0358 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.65]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 37FF6A845E989; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:53:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t1DFrdNZ025998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:53:39 -0500
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.190]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:53:39 -0500
From: "Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)" <shahid.akhtar@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...
Thread-Index: AQHP/tL0evjHW4yrRkuErsO0PG9eAJxeAL8AgJFLMbA=
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:53:39 +0000
Message-ID: <C0611F522A6FA9498A044C36073E4965C3169371@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <D086F727.B6AF%ropan@cisco.com> <5463F169.6020805@gmail.com> <cf344e47f30e4cd49afa04280b4cbeef@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <cf344e47f30e4cd49afa04280b4cbeef@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/GrWZCBeEgzE9LmpVvqdaMFBPN1A>
Subject: Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:53:46 -0000

Hi All,

The work we presented at ICCRG in Vancouver was published and is available at:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7036963&queryText%3Dglobecom+2014+aqm

It does not have any analysis of PIE, but does discuss CoDel.

-Shahid Akhtar.

-----Original Message-----
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scheffenegger, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:04 PM
To: Martin Stiemerling; aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...

Hi Martin,

I believe these papers may qualify that requirement:

http://ipv6.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6925768
https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/37381

tl;dr - both pie and codel camps did some independent implementations and testing of the respective other algorithm, with discussions and denting out some poorly described aspects in that process. It's my understanding that this lead to a better quality of the drafts in both instances.



Richard Scheffenegger




> -----Original Message-----
> From: aqm [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin 
> Stiemerling
> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2014 13:47
> To: aqm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...
> 
> [writing not as AD, but as random IETF participant]
> 
> Sorry for this blunt question:
> 
> Is there any other analysis made by an independent source, i.e., where 
> not the PIE authors are running an analysis of PIE?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>    Martin
> 
> Am 10.11.14 um 21:15 schrieb Rong Pan (ropan):
> > Please see our analysis paper on PIE...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rong
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aqm mailing list
> > aqm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

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