Re: [aqm] thoughts on operational queue settings (Re: [tsvwg] CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04) (fwd)

Jonathan Morton <> Thu, 12 April 2018 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606D31241FC for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t93Uzl5JWzIo for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81E801201F8 for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q5-v6so6177007lff.12 for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=o0WFEZhea1/FoRjREya1wnxtlussfbs4jdrkf0VRaRk=; b=P2L16+1iVhTL9N7Omea+S4rEM1O2xCofTKTHLB/qMqpnS0ZzKdAOG/oyd+1mN8mH42 +izy6Rhjmw0LdeISw2NO5JPkJdSeEbxEu3BSLSYAoqbRArVlq5AAX8x/5DOo/jM/F3nt gUv8Wg/B/04l/n3sKHL1SchPatrQGaEhHrKR4aQh+pufGVnRtHRL11S4DHaLhZQyaiXw cMQ7Qsn5vtdzGd7F4HYHdQ3bg7zTcCGC2oGcou1Z+GHaft6dViOi7xRnRtZAQWLqaRQ1 Rt7IXhA4B0A4xGT6+ytQPDjel3MAjWkEZBe3FWPIYn5GVom5LLVYSuTX6SgBwNdZ7keJ TVRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=o0WFEZhea1/FoRjREya1wnxtlussfbs4jdrkf0VRaRk=; b=WO0y5tT7LbMCebXTTYtqq9Kw8pzw8GgnwMtBCxZjQz+HkfsXMonmjxRTv4WtoseSPj 6+CpC3J0jlm1xxRDkxNGYTyquIBuL71pxY0KwcYcmH9azAEdkJOJmEUVIcA28Lw65itV QfpYYk4vijnhjCmWA+weVzdFSKU14aiwzhcOl6dWUq6lb/hEWyWq0aUx+YG7bR2iSqr7 LmmSSmaRgeDp4cF2TyVxwJ/NCmKC9yhHRWLez8OJeApCXnC2CnObN4j0Y4SldfB+VBUF Y7yes6OPSwlEIyvrAnoSrRqGZTHKmum5pqr+kRiSu38koGiWlxj3Ubg94uyLmt5yb1uC O33w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBPvyEDnAJKVdzR/mKIpLso0vOIb+10x/QrCpGfhO+0W74gYnbz Y4FFPEold2cEbkQty94v0lU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/pq50GtOyJGopJtZlviydYyDprV/BuGf1bZwOXRpTeo4xmrb5LpTKZLn+RJFhF+IjYqe8ilQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z7mr4153425lji.144.1523517711889; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s9-v6sm593270lfe.20.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:21:48 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] thoughts on operational queue settings (Re: [tsvwg] CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04) (fwd)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:21:55 -0000

> On 12 Apr, 2018, at 9:46 am, Mikael Abrahamsson <> wrote:
> I sent this to tsvwg where we're discussing the LE codepoint. Since I am now talking queue settings, I thought it might be interesting to get feedback from this group as well on what advice we should give operators.
> Please take into account that I am aiming for what is possible on currently deployed platforms, seen in the field. Not what might be possible on future hardware/software. So available are generally (W)RED per queue and a few queues per customer.
> I am also going to test a 3 queue setup, where each of these groups of DSCP values would go into different queues where LE would perhaps be assured 5% of BW and the rest split evenly between a BE and "everything else" queue. If I did that, I would probably not start dropping LE traffic until 10-20ms buffer fill.

Given the stated constraints, this looks reasonable to me.  Better to have some basic AQM than a purely dumb FIFO.

Better still, of course, to have something more modern...

 - Jonathan Morton