Re: [aqm] PIE vs. RED

Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu> Thu, 13 August 2015 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.edu>
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 E50891B3BA0 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 QA9wLKnrUOKK for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (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 30E891B3B9F for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1ZQ19f-0003cZ-4D; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:39:23 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7F87B012E2; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:39:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <55CD1C9A.9040406@kit.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:39:22 +0200
From: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
References: <55CC8D6B.7030007@kit.edu> <CAJq5cE2sNFvLPvrB82dRrN+nbZLNRuo+TmCVgSYCp4TumN70Sw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJq5cE2sNFvLPvrB82dRrN+nbZLNRuo+TmCVgSYCp4TumN70Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1439505563.
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/Ji-6Lm7ACBeRf3gfrVFwDvMUO5k>
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] PIE vs. RED
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:39:27 -0000

Hi Jonathan,

Am 13.08.2015 um 19:35 schrieb Jonathan Morton:
> In the real world, the hardware buffer size is rarely matched to the
> real BDP.  There are several reasons for this, but a couple of
> fundamental ones are:
> 
> - BDP varies with RTT, which is in general different for flows
> simultaneously using the same link/queue to reach different remote
> hosts, and therefore cannot be accurately predicted by a hardware vendor.

Yep, sure. My point was not to promote setting the buffers according to
"the BDP", but rather arguing that one should use comparable target
settings when comparing AQMs, see below...

> - Frequently, the queue size is tuned for the maximum capability of the
> device and a pessimistic value for RTT, but the same hardware is more
> often used (at least initially) at lower link speeds and thebqueue size
> is not adjusted to compensate.  Eg. DOCSIS 2 cable but DOCSIS 3 modem,
> Ethernet NIC or switch capable of 1000Mbps but operating at 100 or even
> 10, 802.11ac wifi struggling with a marginal 802.11g link...
> 
> Thus substantially oversized raw buffers are quite normal.  It is AQM's
> job to keep the *actual* queue occupancy low; with a properly
> functioning AQM, the effects of an oversized raw queue are nil.

That's correct. However, IMHO if one compares AQMs one should set/tune
the individual parameters of the AQMs so that they achieve a similar
target value (and not more than an order of magnitude apart).
This is probably relevant for the aqm eval guidelines, but
I'll come up with a detailed review for the draft within the next days...

Regards,
 Roland