[aqm] Pointlessness of De-randomization
Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Tue, 11 November 2014 00:11 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
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 80AA81A1F70 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:11:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 TeOIswsEufjM for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 491441AC445 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) by EVMHR66-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:11:34 +0000
Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:11:36 +0000
Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:11:35 +0000
Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.109.36.210]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id sAB0BWTv019197; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:11:34 GMT
Message-ID: <201411110011.sAB0BWTv019197@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:55:43 +0000
To: Rong PAN <ropan@cisco.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/P0dGTKoUAzzHZJcbXPgOFLza-vQ
Cc: AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: [aqm] Pointlessness of De-randomization
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: <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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:11:41 -0000
Rong, I promised my proof that code to de-randomize drops could be pointless. It's within S.7.7.1 of my PhD dissertation: <http://www.bobbriscoe.net/pubs.html#refb-dis> Search for the heading: "Are RED Markings Uniformly Distributed" Admittedly, the proof depends on the assumption "as long as the flow rate is small relative to the link capacity", which might not be applicable in your deployment scenario. However, it might be worth you taking a look. Bob ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT
- [aqm] Pointlessness of De-randomization Bob Briscoe
- Re: [aqm] Pointlessness of De-randomization Rong Pan (ropan)