IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] aqm conference call results?

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 26 June 2014 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 9DA6A1B2DA0 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.152 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 zFF2gtvhD7n7 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EC4A1B2C6D for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2135; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1403804619; x=1405014219; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=7qnyfIRvBzM9CSOAsLNY3+TH6SKlycx3XF7XMCZB8os=; b=k78kwIR5m0CYtpgZlk2vnh0QcEfuP6U7FdA5fHBrbMg+MC8xeSAQEEDo gb9I2qSSOgcciyve1AqiynNDsAz2O4sc5A58qFXL1baPjciEdLXeE8I2y AJ1Pf1Ut8TQ+5mtw2YFI6N5cX0qx6bRYaVWBa8QgyrW4EZCZhK874OXpO I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAExarFOtJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABagw1SWrxWh0ABgQ0WdYQDAQEBAwEBAQFlBgsFCwIBCEYhBgslAgQOBQ6IIAMJCA27Qw2GUBeMW4IlB4MtgRYFkg+BQoULgX2BRowghg+DQoIw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,554,1400025600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="56181577"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2014 17:43:39 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5QHhcgl022651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:43:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.143]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:43:38 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] aqm conference call results?
Thread-Index: AQHPkWYpd6pDJvJld0ivK6Dvr76R1A==
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:43:38 +0000
Message-ID: <127D8A60-EC5C-4714-B711-73D75C86BE8D@cisco.com>
References: <CAA93jw7ZXrD6TRm_FejsC95GJYqUv5e27M0KZnDuHpPd4QQcmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7ZXrD6TRm_FejsC95GJYqUv5e27M0KZnDuHpPd4QQcmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.116]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_27540AB2-43ED-4454-86C7-5EB310F11AC2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ckzx7LKP8h33tV0AqDA3xyC-a18
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] aqm conference call results?
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: <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: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:53:04 -0000

On Jun 26, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> there some slides presented that I'd like to refer to as to the aqm
> evaluation guide's directions that I'd like to see again. Link?
> 
> As it is being broken up into an overview and a second document
> detailing tests, I'd like people to look over the tests proposed in
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarker-rmcat-eval-test-01
> 
> as a possible inspiration. While I like the above a lot, it bothers me
> that it is only targeted at very low bandwidth scenarios (4mbit being
> the topmost).

I would expect that’s a bang-for-buck issue. The same problems happen at 4 GBPS that happen at 4 MBPS, but they have important differences. A session that moves a certain amount of data moves 1000 times faster, and you might have 1000 times as many parallel sessions, with the “law of large numbers” implications.

> There are hopefully other tests proposed by other relevant working
> groups (ippm, http 2.0, sctp come to mind immediately), that I'd like
> to be aware of, and yet don't have the energy to sort through each wg
> to find. If there is a way to get a list of tests each wg considers
> important to work with, that would be a starting point.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email