[aqm] ingress shaping
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 20 March 2013 16:55 UTC
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 48F5311E80A4 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DMOjt+jmAaOR for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C9711E80A2 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0B8E99C; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:55:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BAF9A for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:55:57 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:55:57 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: aqm@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1303201746360.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [aqm] ingress shaping
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:55:59 -0000
Hello. I'd just like to bring attention to another deployment scenario where ingress queuing might make a lot of sense: ISP deploys ETTH on a 100/100 port (100 megabit/s ethernet full duplex). Service is 100/10 (100 megabit/s towards the customer (downstream), 10 megabit/s customer->Internet (upstream)). ISP solves the traffic problem by putting in a policer upstream that has a 2 second burst size, and polices at 12 megabit/s. This means TCP will be sawtoothing, but it will pass the "speedtest" websites, because effective throughput will be ~10 megabit/s upstream. Now, I feel the customer is better served if there was some shaping/buffering instead of this policer (policer is defined as something that has no buffer but instead just drops packet that is over bytes/s averaged over a certain time). Since the first real buffering point in this solution is the customer CPE, to achieve buffering we need to do this ingress towards the CPE. Downstream device layout: Internet -> ISP -> DR -> AS1 -> AS2 -> AS3 -> CPE AS = Access switch DR = Distribution Router CPE=Customer Premice Equipment Policing is done egress on AS3. To smoothe out the flows, CPE needs to do ingress shaping to ~10 megabit/s. Would it make sense to apply fq_codel with an artificial bw shaper ingress on the CPE? Since the fq_codel would limit queuing to ~5ms and smoothe out flows, I don't see how the 12 megabit/s policer at AS3 egress would even be hit (unless it's very bursty flows)? If there is any AQM document that one can do procurement decisions against, I'd like to have this deployment scenario included anyway, so that device vendors include possibility of ingress shaping as well. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
- [aqm] ingress shaping Mikael Abrahamsson