IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Mon, 06 May 2013 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 203CD21F9049 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 07:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 GrEMt3bTjS1i for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2013 07:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A8821F8F0E for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2013 07:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UZMM2-000380-CF; Mon, 06 May 2013 16:25:26 +0200
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UZMM1-0000ro-VC; Mon, 06 May 2013 16:25:26 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B850ECE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 16:25:25 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <41E8D91E-658B-4B44-92D2-5EB0329781A5@ifi.uio.no>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B850ECE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 4 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 10 sum msgs/h 4 total rcpts 4138 max rcpts/h 40 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.7, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.653, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: A29C2F0ED15E60A535B7D6AEFDE1DE471F761A82
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -56 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 1840 max/h 12 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Cc: 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 14:25:39 -0000

Hi,

First of all, I'd like to say that I agree with all the recommendations you asked about so far. I hesitated to answer as I wasn't sure if a ton of "yes I do" responses are useful?!

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."

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. 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.

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."

Cheers,
Michael


On 6. mai 2013, at 16:00, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

> Do we generally agree with the recommendation of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-aqm-recommendation-01#section-4.4? This is the question of ensuring that AQM technologies are applicable to all Internet traffic - not just TCP, but UDP, SCTP, and so on.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email