Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Tue, 28 March 2017 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@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 2CE1D1299B2; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 VWASFV908Eku; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAC421299BC; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x137so36285861lff.3; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cP2VIevEqGr2DvrVqfqVGJwKLEzRJzalYawF/qXpGcw=; b=ElK/ZQDWaJDIadpzzEzoKWv3+BDtiwtNJv34E0s/LvczabpeCSQPU+9SnbVUY28NXV wR3MtFogWfqWQQ1892k/LopaEA8UG+/gbTW1pMVaQXhbhEk0rm/DJhXGP1IXyy0DSHa+ 6H4eWv6Jk1qJzE/UaQ9TygGNWZnVcP4GnRCRFwtps4QLu0CiaSM2BBv5bnYVeD7pBEpt +zZn5eKRCd56fwb+qAwvoIlgsmijPaH2ZVjB47cUj9YyLIV04WlaebCf/KyUqRA6LWZV /PscKtf1VAsf20gUFfsrKimW+CZHITKnIAo8e3VYHFphIpw3/BU98t05vAg2QZv8d4V5 v8Aw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cP2VIevEqGr2DvrVqfqVGJwKLEzRJzalYawF/qXpGcw=; b=B+hRn2KfKc/JIZ98Csg4GNkGgYv6bXDN54/2/0txEAJMXnq9y1kbNjwsbELAJg/e72 Girzn+mGm/IB8qzfn6ejmn/buQxTY37vSjgFBq7XNe2XV5XplIKy5RcgFu/oeQNOzKsR VJ0YHtwrZRSq9IKqDWo5QCi51ljEjoqtdd40v7EgnI80omSk5SQC3jhS161S2cLECw/W mGFF3JI7UfTsHXflOlDbPGaBUlYsOzm8dulCwPuJzJGBSs6RSuidXrUqkFcOkN11O3qL ChHTPztI8Bm7OML0Go54sf0WFeMjFw2du8DdRoTfhP5zERxHWDNbIDu1twt8aZknrwVH 0ESg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2tjs4A/5m+NQE711t4OXRqhcnqBaJTDMu26oiNHqbeITfVLVzbt0NwLhLsn4BrAQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.211.2 with SMTP id k2mr13160433lfg.61.1490701612260; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.100.14] (37-219-158-10.nat.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.219.158.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m2sm632776lfg.35.2017.03.28.04.46.50 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D05425F7-4AA8-42E1-A7AC-E5757F21C29B@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:46:48 +0300
Cc: Rong Pan <ropan@cisco.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>, Preethi Natarajan <prenatar@cisco.com>, AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org>, "De Schepper, Koen (Koen)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4C00F349-7F88-413A-AB1B-5487779301F8@gmail.com>
References: <9ddba389-e368-9050-3b14-aa235c99fcb8@bobbriscoe.net> <D4FDD717.2636D%ropan@cisco.com> <77D4FC66-C99F-49D0-BB73-27A0CEF70F31@gmail.com> <D05425F7-4AA8-42E1-A7AC-E5757F21C29B@gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/L8_UG2kKu30zUwmfJgqcowohYNQ>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:46:59 -0000

> On 28 Mar, 2017, at 14:39, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not convinced I understand the definitions of "work conserving" and "non work conserving" in this context. A "work conserving" scheduling algorithm keeps an interface transmitting as long as there is data in the queue, while a non-work-conserving algorithm reduces the effective rate of the interface by spacing packets out.

In which case the explanation makes even less sense, as PIE doesn’t include a shaper.

 - Jonathan Morton