Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic - moving averages and rate measurement

"Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com> Fri, 26 May 2017 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ropan@cisco.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 9DBA71287A5; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 hk9Q7WJjDr4D; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CEC9127ABE; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2038; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495830440; x=1497040040; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=M3UznZZUbUK87vqen9UGlFYCGojcxR6zA5eOfLNJWhU=; b=adzr3U9JyFjZ5rdwdeIpGlUsM5DIr22cspSyj83rYVxjYaasKk8+0HAq m5rwOJu1naNBwRt/s+7qMei8BcE5thwWf3z+N4inq3Bi7QCr5NhqOWplA 89EEer2fVlK2PSTmAK3uaxmfrmO2phQ533ZUidSN18TJlLFs7QGygYvEI I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AwAQBqjihZ/4wNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQ0Hg2iKGJFElhqCDyELhXgCGoJwPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?ZAgEDAQEhBA06CxACAQgODAImAgICJQsVEAIEAQ0FiikBEKp7gWw6i1EBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELhVaBYCsLgmmEaYMSL4IxAQSeIwGTJ5F3lE0?= =?us-ascii?q?BHziBCnQVRhIBhm92h3wBgQwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,399,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="253371082"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 26 May 2017 20:27:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (xch-rcd-017.cisco.com [173.37.102.27]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4QKRJ66014116 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 May 2017 20:27:19 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) by XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 26 May 2017 15:27:18 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com ([173.36.7.27]) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com ([173.36.7.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 26 May 2017 15:27:18 -0500
From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>
CC: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic - moving averages and rate measurement
Thread-Index: AQHSqTwWerDmuF5Yhk2304NzwwextKIEvUsAgACcqQCAAjGtgP//nIaAgAAgygA=
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:27:18 +0000
Message-ID: <1D08E138-629C-4551-AC0E-F0F82E536A6B@cisco.com>
References: <9ddba389-e368-9050-3b14-aa235c99fcb8@bobbriscoe.net> <D4FDD717.2636D%ropan@cisco.com> <77D4FC66-C99F-49D0-BB73-27A0CEF70F31@gmail.com> <99a7b737-fc3c-efd0-b6c8-d71a089b7de8@bobbriscoe.net> <FB0F3D38-63E2-441E-BAB4-2541D7E9FE94@gmail.com> <471e91b1-c469-3d36-9af1-0411e5661286@uni-tuebingen.de> <abadc87c-49f2-46e2-ae43-0853ac81e794@bobbriscoe.net> <da895a48-6b9c-c67f-1f52-d9eb52844ad6@uni-tuebingen.de> <404874be-32a9-4425-b2ff-5fbff804b5ee@bobbriscoe.net> <9E1B8C70-B6C7-456C-B938-F2C08532FB69@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E1B8C70-B6C7-456C-B938-F2C08532FB69@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [171.71.130.238]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <41CC2A6E2B416F4681BB76010E726D09@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/NF2XO0I0CSloxEIzf0DO28R55NE>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic - moving averages and rate measurement
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: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:27:21 -0000

Additional consideration is that 1/t1 would involve divide, which will be hard to implement in hardware…

Regards,

Rong

On 5/26/17, 11:29 AM, "aqm on behalf of Rong Pan (ropan)" <aqm-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ropan@cisco.com> wrote:

    Michael and Bob,
    
    The depart_rate is inversed in calculation delay….
    Delay = queue_length/depart_rate; 
    Hence, current_qdelay = queue_.byte_length() * PIE- >avg_dq_time_/DQ_THRESHOLD;
    
    Basically the average dq_time for dequeueing DQ_THRESHOLD is PIE->dq_time; What is the approximate time to deque the current_qlen?
    Current_qlen/DQ_THRESHOLD(what portion is current queue length relative to DQ_THRESHOLD)? * avg_dq_time.
    
    That is the rationale behind it.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Rong
    
        >> (EWMA) of the rate should be:
        >>
        >>      ewma(depart_rate) = DQ_THRESHOLD ∗ ewma(1/t1,1/t2,1/t3,...)
        >>                       != DQ_THRESHOLD / ewma(t1,t2,t3,...)
        >> "
        >> PIE uses the second (incorrect) formula. In the review, I discuss how
        >> wrong this could be, with an example.
        > Thanks, Bob, for pointing this out to me.
        >
        > Rong, is PIE doing this by intent (if so, what's the reason?) or is this
        > a flaw?
        >
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    aqm mailing list
    aqm@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm