Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu> Fri, 15 December 2017 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.edu>
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 CA27D126E01 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:25:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 O7MC133u1I2J for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (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 5618E124D85 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1ePlJY-0001X5-3b; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:25:52 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0027FB00A28; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:25:51 +0100 (CET)
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@nokia.com>
References: <468c391d-7e18-e67c-d1b6-b6526eb8d9e3@kit.edu> <6cbdb8fb-4a4f-9fdf-e391-081c9bf94a1f@mti-systems.com>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <1b67c68b-00de-6cb2-cca1-5b9d06b58714@kit.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:25:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6cbdb8fb-4a4f-9fdf-e391-081c9bf94a1f@mti-systems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1513326352.165059007
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/co7qslsPX4DlzzG6EnOa-GDp1JU>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:25:58 -0000

Hi Wesley,

Am 14.12.2017 um 22:59 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
> I mentioned GSP as a possible work item, back when we were discussing
> rechartering, but apparently it was not compelling to the group at that
> time.
> 
> When we did the AQM algorithm adoption call ~2014, GSP appeared to be
> basically viable technically, but there wasn't evidence that multiple
> parties were interested in working with it enough to go forward (not
> just working the document, but implementing, simulating, testing,
> analyzing, deploying, etc).   There is a thread in the archives with
> subject "[aqm] adoption call: algorithm drafts".

Thanks for the pointer! At that point in time there was not enough
experience with it.

> I haven't noticed a change in activity around GSP since then, but
> apologize if I'm just ignorant of it!

That's right, maybe Wolfram was busy with other stuff.
Our group, however, worked with it at speeds of 1 Gbit/s
and also 10 Gbit/s and we can confirm that its performance is comparable
to - and w.r.t. loss desynchronization - even better than CoDel or PIE
in many of our tested scenarios. Since it's heading for just an
experimental status, the bar shouldn't be too high to get this finished.

Regards,
 Roland