Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic

Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com> Tue, 28 March 2017 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <luca.muscariello@gmail.com>
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 5DF13124281; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4AzOy5EMki16; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44CCF1200C1; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id i34so62724319qtc.0; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W6EfJgH7gvTRmrSe1FpFk4gWtvHbsbrIhEL5qltJ5EE=; b=JIG/kwOGnxmwNxgbsxGU2z+RwOJ1oQ0giRO4wNg33qNPRhjI4dnch8mdQSLGWOVWUI QMMrMEX6zksTTty9w+03EdPMjX//j3ehUkATBWq7YJnoIXG6WBFr2yKGP3oXytxIKn56 w+KC0AcKm6d431eKzt8cvBVgBDhwc5YRfiv8h7Vqf2ozA6la57DH63gAh8jJJLKTDteO WhxYm2tdeZtWygOedYf0jRY9VdJZgxK6xC0+6yHvhxbGqKdvKAhRrtgB6H5IG7Sf2DnI lSqJwzuGS/k71CBPixJqBaeDLX1yU+Sg44KtFF1Po/0a4IVDA0iu1dWrDcmCUsgZBPTR 60MA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W6EfJgH7gvTRmrSe1FpFk4gWtvHbsbrIhEL5qltJ5EE=; b=NNKLsqcrhT5xj/FhxW3dRVeTbFLxSLwAos04sE4x198iwbUA3M14NWudwa5a6y+mrS LYlkhnVoZSUvEl3NNucH82lXdwZZ8xRLC369MPoRUgdYKifni6yMZeVzXYtt4BIejya8 DHDpthS91wqbcsCtm1NCWC7+6Y8q5reo/XICKKDZfqRiKiYkL5Kj4PwaIldJA9v/SiaU ajhjXlRC+MAMlDV6NMyDY1Haiu9tf/hu5y5rtMguVUGEyJZFpnqfNuAYR8Dhy85vk5+S ZHB+6eRk0mIrvMIj/yQ8u+qog4mJc6AnpTztlbCTYV4X/6fts8MDJl9F1XjWg1uqEVrU ovHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2EMmeyx8lYdhPONfZdq/MLwrNhHp0HDVd6A7rlMd4yxtJtuABarq/b1r9mEx0KzRI3D0J1bXqkI3du9g==
X-Received: by 10.200.43.149 with SMTP id m21mr28537222qtm.102.1490705333238; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.161.162 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <48f5f485-5d34-a768-4180-c5df761de005@kit.edu>
References: <9ddba389-e368-9050-3b14-aa235c99fcb8@bobbriscoe.net> <D4FDD717.2636D%ropan@cisco.com> <77D4FC66-C99F-49D0-BB73-27A0CEF70F31@gmail.com> <D05425F7-4AA8-42E1-A7AC-E5757F21C29B@gmail.com> <48f5f485-5d34-a768-4180-c5df761de005@kit.edu>
From: Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:48:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHx=1M5gMmAgp=9sPP8xhM-6gNTLxfANV1B_2rHWb8=hFCqEUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "De Schepper, Koen (Koen)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Rong Pan <ropan@cisco.com>, Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>, AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org>, Preethi Natarajan <prenatar@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113778c6da4624054bc9e194
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/eeH_yECyDHpsu8Ifkj589naNj3s>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:04:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [aqm] Questioning each PIE heuristic
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:48:56 -0000

Work conserving is supposed to be referring to the scheduler.
I'm not familiar with work-conservation when it refers to active queue
management.
I'm not sure it is actually defined.

I can understand that an AQM can produce under utilization of the link, but
that is
different to work conservation. Or is it maybe more subtle than that?

Luca

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Bless, Roland (TM) <roland.bless@kit.edu>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 28.03.2017 um 13:39 schrieb Fred Baker:
>
> > I'm not convinced I understand the definitions of "work conserving"
> > and "non work conserving" in this context. A "work conserving"
> > scheduling algorithm keeps an interface transmitting as long as there
> > is data in the queue, while a non-work-conserving algorithm reduces
> > the effective rate of the interface by spacing packets out.
>
> +1 (that's also the definition I use, so I'm lost here too)
>
> Regards,
>  Roland
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>