Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05.txt

Nicolas Kuhn <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu> Tue, 30 June 2015 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu>
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 B85EA1A19F2 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 pANaVJo41Hx7 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.117.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D101A037B for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DB3232021; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:02:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id DvG5Zf9682aw; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:02:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F7B2320C6; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:02:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr
Received: from zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id H1qk9P1o3XfX; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:02:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.40.117.70] (unknown [213.174.117.243]) by zproxy210.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79538232021; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:02:10 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C57C5A9F-E849-4EC5-A22F-995FC464BB27"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Nicolas Kuhn <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu>
In-Reply-To: <79526751e36d337ad38ffe7cf67d15f5@superduper.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:02:10 +0200
Message-Id: <63BBF3BB-AF91-4CC9-8865-389E3DE8FE92@telecom-bretagne.eu>
References: <20150629120348.27624.50667.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <79526751e36d337ad38ffe7cf67d15f5@superduper.net>
To: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/YozQzkxGirU3Ln1bDEvF53W011I>
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05.txt
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: <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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:02:15 -0000

Dear Simon, 

> On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:31, Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net> wrote:
> 
> Section 7.2 does not discuss testing of a very common scenario for network edge devices - no congestion, and single flow. There are issues with some AQMs reducing goodput in these scenarios, and there is a trade off between the achievable latency and maximizing goodput here. The recommendation should include testing of these common and potential problem regimes, In particular long RTT and very low numbers of flows are of concern.
> 

In section 5.2, we have the following test: 

"
5.2.  Recommended tests

[ … ]

   o  To evaluate the impact of the RTT value on the AQM performance and
      the intra-protocol fairness (the fairness for the flows using the
      same paths/congestion control), for each run, two flows (Flow1 and
      Flow2) should be introduced.  For each experiment, the set of RTT
      SHOULD be the same for the two flows and in [5ms;560ms].
“

We have 2 flows to have the same load as in the “inter-RTT fairness” scenario
that is presented in the same section and this is not a “MUST” requirement. 
 
This scenario is somehow "very common” - no congestion - scenario.

We may reduce the number of flow to 1 for that specific scenario, but I am not quite
sure to understand the rationale of such change if the objective is to evaluate 
not debug an AQM.

> The current definition of mild congestion results in enough flows to not test the problem areas.
> 

Indeed, this is why, in section 5.2, we propose a lower level of congestion 
than in the mild congestion scenario.

Kind regards,

Nicolas 

> Simon
> 
> 
> On 2015-06-29 05:03, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet
>> Scheduling Working Group of the IETF.
>> 
>>        Title           : AQM Characterization Guidelines
>>        Authors         : Nicolas Kuhn
>>                          Preethi Natarajan
>>                          Naeem Khademi
>>                          David Ros
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05.txt
>> 	Pages           : 35
>> 	Date            : 2015-06-29
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
>>   of performance issues.  These performance issues can be addressed by
>>   some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
>>   combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
>>   The IETF Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling working group
>>   was formed to standardize AQM schemes that are robust, easily
>>   implementable, and successfully deployable in today's networks.  This
>>   document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
>>   characterizations of AQM proposals.  This document also helps in
>>   ascertaining whether any given AQM proposal should be taken up for
>>   standardization by the AQM WG.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/
>> 
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aqm mailing list
>> aqm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm