IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] PIE vs. RED

"LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 14 August 2015 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 5F6571ACE56 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Uq5pPYW3zzeo for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (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 97ED91ACE53 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id CDFA87E54C05A for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:01:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t7E71bll017743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:01:37 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA13.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.5.200]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:01:35 +0200
From: "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] PIE vs. RED
Thread-Index: AQHQ1cPPiJQabPOfrUW8tMPlKlXCWp4KD/mAgABUxACAAAfBgIAAAl2AgACfOfA=
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:01:34 +0000
Message-ID: <0A452E1DADEF254C9A7AC1969B8781284A7D704E@FR712WXCHMBA13.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <55CC8D6B.7030007@kit.edu> <CAJq5cE2sNFvLPvrB82dRrN+nbZLNRuo+TmCVgSYCp4TumN70Sw@mail.gmail.com> <55CD1C9A.9040406@kit.edu> <1BFAC0A1D7955144A2444E902CB628F865B08093@US70TWXCHMBA12.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <D1F2716B.654D%ropan@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1F2716B.654D%ropan@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01D0D66F.D058D160"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/h0AUPwXwtzd0CsUQ79r121kN8x8>
Subject: Re: [aqm] PIE vs. RED
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: <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, 14 Aug 2015 07:01:41 -0000

> Delayed-based RED still would associate latency with drop probability:
> drop probability will only go up when queueing latency goes up. A higher
> drop probability can only be achieved via higher queueing latency.

If following Bob's statements last IETF, this could even be a desirable
feature: Let the queue grow a little bit further to avoid drop probabilities
> 20%, or prevent AQM's attempts to lower CWND below 2 at small RTTs.

It is just that AQM is an extremely multidimensional problem space...

Wolfram

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email