Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4
John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 06 May 2013 19:17 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9519321F87D2 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 12:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q4kIOa38zFy2 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 12:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FFD21F87CD for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2013 12:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 4526933C22; Mon, 6 May 2013 15:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 15:17:25 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Message-ID: <20130506191725.GV23227@verdi>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B850ECE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <41E8D91E-658B-4B44-92D2-5EB0329781A5@ifi.uio.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41E8D91E-658B-4B44-92D2-5EB0329781A5@ifi.uio.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 06 May 2013 19:17:33 -0000
Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > About this recommendation, I agree regarding what it actually > recommends, but I have a comment about the wording. This bit: > > "Hence, Active Queue Management algorithms that are effective with > all of those transports and the applications that use them are to be > preferred." >... I think some wordsmithing would help... ] ] 4.4. Active Queue Management algorithms deployed SHOULD be effective on ] all common Internet traffic At the outset, do we mean to say that AQM specifications SHOULD have, e.g., a "UDP Considerations" section? (That's one way to read this.) Or do we mean that AQM SHOULD NOT be optimized for TCP? Or do we mean there exist some magical principles which enable AQM designers to optimize for IP traffic we haven't thought of yet? ] Active Queue Management algorithms often target TCP [RFC0793], as it ] is by far the predominant transport in the Internet today. However, ] we have significant use of UDP [RFC0768] in voice and video services, ] and find utility in SCTP [RFC4960] and DCCP [RFC4340]. Hence, Active ] Queue Management algorithms that are effective with all of those ] transports and the applications that use them are to be preferred. I'm not the least bit sure that "target TCP" is the point. There's an incredible range of traffic carried over TCP. It's typical for an AQM proposal to be tested in terms of how a bulk-transfer TCP reacts vs. an "interactive" web session series of "short" TCP streams. This, IMHO, isn't "targetting" TCP, but rather comparing bulk transfer vs. on-demand short-transfer -- where both happen to use TCP transport. They could just as well be using SCTP or any of several other transports. Do we mean to say that things would be significantly better if the tests were altered to use SCTP for some of the sessions? Besides, whether sessions are mixed transports or all TCP, the congestion-control algorithms are in fact varied. Don't we mean to say that AQM algorithms SHOULD work with a variety of congestion control algorithms? If we do mean to require consideration of multiple _transports_, what do we wish to see considered? I don't get much of a hint from this text. Back to Michael: > sounds as if it would be the most normal thing in the world for an > AQM algorithm to make a decision based on the transport protocol, > which I think it shouldn't. That's certainly one "solution"... And I also dislike it. > To me, ECN is an IP-layer signal and routers shouldn't have to > investigate what's layered on it (which may go beyond just looking > at the "protocol" field in case of tunnels) in order to make their > decisions. Yes, but... It seems unlikely that we're going to get a fully satisfactory AQM without separate queues for different flows. I'd like to believe the IPv6 flow label can give us what we need, but that's optimistic... > I tried to come up with a better phrasing but failed... maybe it > could be an idea to just add a sentence after this one, saying > something like "Such algorithms do not need to consider any > information in the packet beyond its IP header." I think more substantial rewording is needed. I'll be happy to suggest wording _after_ I see a better understanding of what we mean to say here. -- John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
- [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Michael Welzl
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… John Leslie
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Michael Welzl
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… John Leslie
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… grenville armitage
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… John Leslie
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… grenville armitage
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Michael Welzl
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Rong Pan (ropan)
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Rong Pan (ropan)
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Scott Brim
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendat… Bob Briscoe