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

[Nicolas Kuhn <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

> On 09 Mar 2015, at 14:32, LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> Bi-directional traffic is mentioned in section 3.1 Topology and 4.5 Traffic Mix, but not further detailed.
>  
> I suggest to add at least one scenario in section 4.5, where both directions are congested at the same time, e.g. two or more counter propagating bulk TCP transfers. Only in this scenario the returning ACK packets undergo a reasonable queuing delay (and jitter) from the opposite direction queue. If I'm right, Dave Taht repeatedly mentioned that scenario as critical. And he is right, I tried it out.
>  

You are right, we should have included this scenario a while ago. 
Because it is too late now for submitting an updated version of the draft, what follows it what will be presented at IETF92. 
In the 02 version of the draft, we will update the ToC of the document as follows:

"
  4.  Various TCP variants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  TCP-friendly Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Aggressive Transport Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Unresponsive Transport Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  TCP initial congestion window . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.5.  Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
“
will become 

"
   4.  Various TCP variants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  TCP-friendly sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Aggressive transport sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Unresponsive transport sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  TCP initial congestion window . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
…
   8.  Various traffic profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.1.  Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.2.  Bi-directional traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
“

And the content of the section 8 will be: 

“
8.  Various traffic profiles

   This section provides guidelines to assess the performance of an AQM
   proposal for various traffic profiles such as traffic with different
   applications or bi-directional traffic.

8.1.  Traffic Mix

   This scenario helps to evaluate how an AQM scheme reacts to a traffic
   mix consisting of different applications such as:

   o  Bulk TCP transfer

   o  Web traffic

   o  VoIP

   o  Constant Bit Rate (CBR) UDP traffic

   o  Adaptive video streaming

   Various trafic mixes can be considered.  These guidelines RECOMMEND
   to examine at least the following example: 1 bi-directionnal VoIP; 6
   Webs; 1 CBR; 1 Adaptive Video; 5 bulk TCP.  Any other combinations
   could be considered and should be carefully documented.

   For each scenario, the graph described in Section 2.6 could be
   generated for each class of traffic.  In addition, other metrics such
   as end-to-end latency, jitter and flow completion time MUST be
   reported.

8.2.  Bi-directional traffic

   Control packets such as DNS requests/responses, TCP SYNs/ACKs are
   small, but their loss can severely impact the application
   performance.  The scenario proposed in this section will help in
   assessing whether the introduction of an AQM scheme increases the
   loss probability of these important packets.

   For this scenario, traffic MUST be generated in both downlink and
   uplink, such as defined in Section 3.1.  These guidelines RECOMMEND
   to consider a mild congestion level and the traffic presented in
   section Section 7.2.2 in both directions.  In this case, the metrics
   reported MUST be the same as in section Section 7.2 for each
   direction.

   The traffic mix presented in section Section 8.1 MAY also be
   generated in both direction.
"

Regards, 

Nicolas Kuhn




> Wolfram
>  
>  
> Von: aqm [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Naeem Khademi
> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. März 2015 16:18
> An: [e-mail]
> Betreff: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?
>  
> Hi all 
>  
> Any comments on the newly submitted update as draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01 is welcomed. In the new version, we have tried to address the issues brought up on the ML as well as the feedback we received at the IETF-91 and have tried to incorporate them all. We have also clarified several issues in the text making it more straightforward and less ambiguous with regards to the "guidelines" and "scenarios". We would like to have this document discussed on the ML preferably before the 9th March cut-off date as well as during the period prior to IETF-92. 
>  
> Cheers,
> Authors
>  
>      
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm