IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] working group status and rechartering vs. closing

David Lang <david@lang.hm> Thu, 02 June 2016 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
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 0D63312D10B for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZwRlEg4eOKvg for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (lang.hm [66.167.227.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977B612B059 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u520gmGL024326; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:42:48 -0700
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 17:42:48 -0700
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <74081931-bbc2-a3e1-4aac-5633306eecb0@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1606011736120.26452@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <74081931-bbc2-a3e1-4aac-5633306eecb0@mti-systems.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/RFknjcbZT1iJhhZqaIadMsPK7II>
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] working group status and rechartering vs. closing
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 02 Jun 2016 00:42:57 -0000

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Wesley Eddy wrote:

> - Are the current couple of algorithms all that's needed for the Internet, or 
> are there other algorithms building on these, learning from experience with 
> them, or making other improvements which we should work on?  (e.g. we have 
> the DualQ draft, and recently the GSP draft has been updated)

People are always working on better ideas :-)

right now, there is work being done on 'cake' cake@lists.bufferbloat.net 
(started off as 'convert sqm scripts to C code for speed' that is working on 
being able to handle rate limiting and enhance from fq_codel)

This has been ongoing and is available in some OpenWRT builds. Unfortunantly it 
keeps growing new special-case features, so it may never settle down.


also on that list there was the suggestion to look at combining BLUE and Codel 
(working name COBALT) letting each cover the weak points of the other, and 
simplifying the code in the process (by eliminating a lot of special case code 
by letting the other algorithm handle it)

This is a recent suggestion and the first cut of the code is in the process of 
being nailed down, so there isn't any real-world experience with it yet.


Info on both of these can be found in the list archives 
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel

David Lang

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email