Re: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?

"LOCHIN Emmanuel" <Emmanuel.LOCHIN@isae.fr> Tue, 10 March 2015 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Emmanuel.LOCHIN@isae.fr>
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 2EA3C1A86F0 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.141
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 s_Q9I3wv3aeD for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpext.isae.fr (smtpext.isae.fr [193.54.120.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135261A1B07 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from supmail (unknown [10.132.1.9]) by smtpext.isae.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F305122E673; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:02:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from wali.isae.fr (wali.isae.fr [10.132.1.26]) by supmail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175E3C881EA; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:02:20 +0100 (CET)
User-Agent: SOGoMail 2.2.11a
X-Forward: 81.56.87.55
MIME-Version: 1.0
from: "LOCHIN Emmanuel" <Emmanuel.LOCHIN@isae.fr>
message-id: <5351-54fec100-6b-e685050@67600570>
to: "Nicolas Kuhn" <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu>
content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_=-_OpenGroupware_org_NGMime-21329-1425981689.780414-0------"
date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:01:29 +0100
in-reply-to: <A660F054-1149-438E-BE3E-9D6616709695@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/geevPlVesYnW4XL4OunNjfvcjJw>
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [aqm] =?utf-8?q?Comments_on_draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01=3F?=
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:02:26 -0000

So it means that a correct evaluation MUST takes into account the proportion of data traffic from signalling traffic (pure ACK for instance) otherwise performance measurements might be biaised.

Regards

EK


Le Mardi 10 Mars 2015 08:52 CET, Nicolas Kuhn <nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu> a écrit:
  Hi, On 10 Mar 2015, at 08:28, LOCHIN Emmanuel <Emmanuel.LOCHIN@isae.fr> wrote: Hi all,

Reading section "12.4 Packet sizes and congestion notification", I'm wondering whether this should also apply to pure ack traffic?
  For this specific section, for the sake of consistency between the IETF documents, we refer to the “draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation“ document [ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/ ], where it is said:1- in section "4.4 - AQM algorithms SHOULD respond to measured congestion, not application profiles."“Procedures for selecting packets to mark/drop   SHOULD observe the actual or projected time that a packet is in a   queue (bytes at a rate being an analog to time).  When an AQM   algorithm decides whether to drop (or mark) a packet, it is   RECOMMENDED that the size of the particular packet should not be   taken into account [RFC7141]." 2- in section "4.5.  AQM algorithms SHOULD NOT be dependent on specific transport protocol behaviours"“AQM methods should be opaque to the choice of transport and application." IMHO, these two points infer that this would be applied for pure ack traffic as well. If changes need to be done on that aspect, it should be on the “draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation“ document. Whatever happens, the “characterisation guidelines" document should be consistent with the “recommendation document”, and now that you mention this section, I am not sure that a discussion on the packet sizes is needed in the “characterisation guidelines” document.  What do you think ? Kind regards,  Nicolas EL

--  Emmanuel LOCHIN
Professeur ISAE
ISAE SUPAERO - Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace
10 avenue Edouard Belin - BP 54032 - 31055 TOULOUSE CEDEX 4 FRANCE - http://www.isae-supaero.fr
Tel +33 5 61 33 91 85 - Fax (+33) 5 61 33 83 30
Plan d'accès/Access map - Page personnelle


--
  
Emmanuel LOCHIN
Professeur ISAE
ISAE SUPAERO - Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace
10 avenue Edouard Belin - BP 54032 - 31055 TOULOUSE CEDEX 4 FRANCE - http://www.isae-supaero.fr
Tel +33 5 61 33 91 85 - Fax (+33) 5 61 33 83 30
Plan d'accès/Access map -  Page personnelle