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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 12 April 2018 16:31 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 9940B12D96B for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 sdwjxHphkDKj for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DA8F1275FD for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2E1E9AF; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:31:26 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1523550686; bh=h4ALN9hnAcr43bAf8tU7JCurFPjFRqn+pT8GfyOIFGg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=EX5WJGSEdwWqD57/WPHG5YqtwODUupk82GbMt5+HSmI+xrDPzUYlLxAgJG+gPLrSA lfHTFrspqdEFiwDT746nqljsW++hTqxDYopGaRf/KWIx5qCbTe98xHLrwsen9yzyJ9 NnuW6DhLvCXC346HhybSBB7k1WNSLAqik0DRk/Fk=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0A39F; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:31:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:31:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
cc: aqm@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <EACAE8B2-F717-4306-8FCD-DE36312D3BD5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804121827580.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804120839290.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804121317290.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <EACAE8B2-F717-4306-8FCD-DE36312D3BD5@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/WaieDzoxHle5HveEhGcTL5gMG30>
Subject: Re: [aqm] thoughts on operational queue settings (Re: [tsvwg] CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04) (fwd)
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:31:31 -0000

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Jonathan Morton wrote:

> Yes, and that's a policy I can support (as far as it goes).  I'd much 
> rather have, say, 100ms of bloat than 45000ms (which I've previously 
> encountered).

So after some more testing I discovered I kind of need:

class mikabr-LE
   random-detect 50 ms 1000 ms
   bandwidth percent 5

Because the "50ms" is calculated out of the "5%", which means when there 
is no other traffic, "50ms" means 2.5ms of buffer with 0% loss 
probability. Unfortunately it means 50ms of buffer when there is lots of 
other traffic (when it's only getting 5-8% of total capacity).

But I imagine bufferbloating LE should have no negative consequences as 
there should be no interactive traffic marked with LE, right?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se