Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <> Fri, 15 December 2017 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA27D126E01 for <>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:25:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O7MC133u1I2J for <>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5618E124D85 for <>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp port 25 iface id 1ePlJY-0001X5-3b; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:25:52 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0027FB00A28; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:25:51 +0100 (CET)
To: Wesley Eddy <>, "" <>, "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <>
References: <> <>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-Timestamp: 1513326352.165059007
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.