IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Wed, 13 November 2013 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
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 42E8A21F9DF0 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:33:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
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 AJv1ip4Var8I for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC8311E810B for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k14so1136597wgh.5 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:33:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5azHD2dNMyoiUhs6rcgZYHl+SlVxWc+lFJK6/Q0hmsw=; b=v4Mm6QPwKHoIK+rOgFwEKvtYLICgmODqSzP3WlPgC4JwMjKnifnu4ZMHpBNMWBiQJm HlR+Z4oETcYyYA8ragCw+nBADv1mwd/VPYt9wC5BAxpAdWqchtpv7RE+CRWWBHLJxsDv 7+VhRvWBPngU2wNAi7kjSmxrmbm4iHUD+KRPF5qdY8RukAcgNWmiB3blzpNgHj8pYXkO 6l7bz55D9hqBSglG2WY2PblyQ6x/boyX50wzCbH8q1jV3SV3gSaYn0JgFJaQzs8l4o16 2Ht4rh8WTSIuaCFDy/rtCu9WOXR45BLxe/CDORMREUb8ZQGIxlyqzK1TBlachaChsobF /AWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.241.228 with SMTP id wl4mr33684295wjc.2.1384385610464; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:33:30 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.217.57.131 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:33:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201311132323.rADNNIKM047235@gateway1.ipv6.occnc.com>
References: <CA+-tSzyKT9gS_12V=yyia8iPt9FiDg6=NRKrB3FLdCRDTi=6Pg@mail.gmail.com> <201311132323.rADNNIKM047235@gateway1.ipv6.occnc.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:33:30 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: IVlmA96eUte-NGA8gjdop4W3Glk
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzyk=myS9B5tJ465C2JG9QvH8fPCG6Uu1iZ94TgPwV9s+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
To: curtis@ipv6.occnc.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01493c328b463a04eb1764ea"
Cc: Preethi Natarajan <preethi.cis@gmail.com>, Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:33:33 -0000

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com>wrote:

>
> Including unrealistic scenarios, like going from near zero traffic to 10
> interfaces feeding one at full speed until overflow occurs, is
> counterproductive.


It is actually a problem that keeps many people busy because a number of
data center switches have very high port count with very small buffers.
 Some people address these buy using switches with bigger buffers, but
that's not a luxury that everyone indulges in.

That is why I specifically asked the question at the AQM meeting about
applicability of AQM to all types of networks/switches.  I was told the
answer is "yes" and so I would like to see this scenario addressed as well.
 Perhaps AQM cannot help this, but hopefully it won't hurt.  Trying to do
fancy things with small buffers is challenging.

Anoop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email