IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

"Francini, Andrea (Nokia - US/Murray Hill)" <andrea.francini@nokia-bell-labs.com> Fri, 15 December 2017 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <andrea.francini@nokia-bell-labs.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 1EFE01293EE for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:19:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 Ri_cNNqhZfxD for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:19:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-he1eur01on0115.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.0.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A5D1200CF for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:19:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=S+hgEtBZ63z0YWMKpZG8qVbfRmUjhsg4wEj5rsQT57M=; b=akZc0rCb/r1zs3PkuM66k673DUYkOmrQHm/7mwREbFUWxex0+W/z5xD6tUD7NQZoSuEwT9b5ycH4FUW62qSwA5FP5mGdNxQSYC0KbSX6t+8vlxDHof3THUM5Os2fBfWOcUUdQPx1YIwhw5fNgQ2nKDoqw4aN1MtAuSsEdm3ylY0=
Received: from DB4PR07MB425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.237.141) by VI1PR07MB3373.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.175.244.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.323.4; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:19:41 +0000
Received: from DB4PR07MB425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::99e:c37a:b9ba:6b18]) by DB4PR07MB425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::99e:c37a:b9ba:6b18%15]) with mapi id 15.20.0323.011; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:19:39 +0000
From: "Francini, Andrea (Nokia - US/Murray Hill)" <andrea.francini@nokia-bell-labs.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
CC: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, "Lautenschlaeger, Wolfram (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?
Thread-Index: AQHTdSOI4DbYWZQ5BEyua4URsHikU6NDY2yAgACu74CAAHhWIIAACvcAgAAH8UA=
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:19:39 +0000
Message-ID: <DB4PR07MB4259163AC5445D2F57637BFE90B0@DB4PR07MB425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <468c391d-7e18-e67c-d1b6-b6526eb8d9e3@kit.edu> <6cbdb8fb-4a4f-9fdf-e391-081c9bf94a1f@mti-systems.com> <1b67c68b-00de-6cb2-cca1-5b9d06b58714@kit.edu> <DB4PR07MB425231D6D323F2B4B6F09ADE90B0@DB4PR07MB425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAJq5cE30GqXkFUv9J8tH8rnq3qeL+DUi=e4rVp3DdMiNgTh3rA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJq5cE30GqXkFUv9J8tH8rnq3qeL+DUi=e4rVp3DdMiNgTh3rA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=andrea.francini@nokia-bell-labs.com;
x-originating-ip: [100.35.177.227]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB3373; 6:KwaM+nkZBxs+BBbpY2ymqH76dx2h/8hJNo+i0lo5c1KRJ3lIBR1wA6aqtRx/Q3P/wJr5oGdNMDn5DD3UM6P8LzGhqAWqnLDM7GetLyOXIXg+kQI9bqfquEKIq248M+zay4eaTlJTpe8V5GOKKjhZzGWmjRVq/MbxI6wHxT0J7DRmAga7H/VHPeP9RZx+wRxSpV2vM0shruaX1VYIO6jyY88UsuKXruuDugc5DMMZGq0zLv1ePSfYTZaHQhq6IMAWTswDA18DnXnnI3PmWWX5w0KBO7Jj8IXxyfU1VOsC2KMlbEKUyL20Pc8n67mvwzFVuxh2ouzCoZRhrxQ3FvHkgfNUacCjxYR1s8hdz4sxp84=; 5:2P+oy6XLPVDWcUQf3rH7X1X5WzNxAkd4D1mrLHLsKP5CO15+44GADMS+W6AFk5j2+K4NleGl+0uOD8UiM3Z6QpWniYxaVyTWPrSplQAL0N61Lg0rtEi1hKUsMh1P1UdG/hHgFZyGTJ1jpP2jkWxzNG92FKOZlE7FU0Ja+l4aZGc=; 24:iO38iQrSJC3M8K0j7OXsAL7pmMBVAY+XF8Z/IgjY5QfCmjejhcdtjUxHZPVFI04uceG4MVmfE37JUZHXeEb5LKPa5Ke5u0FmjcDSrw2RpE4=; 7:5SiCLW6Q/xAdUzayEDC44F5irXZWkHpVPlQvLKDcdiZYOXTiyl/PMnVsnytDZcJG/VjNmTgnCGjm3BpzT+EdxVwRFD3jtL9y/jlkEXYTQyRvs9NzCd+3ZkrrNT/eneCWOcjQTYft2NGsvpLCTf/iDIn1lwrBLG9RZYlyGBUCJQyV6ymZSQjHJtIQjWK2F4RtpUWMuSWver6z8dZdnkDdE7wseDb7A2QX8EUPxMnEHN9jxWAVKA58ylo9EdBjn89q
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR;
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(6436002)(99286004)(102836003)(68736007)(14454004)(1411001)(2950100002)(76176011)(66066001)(86362001)(7696005)(9686003)(6506007)(6916009)(54896002)(97736004)(55016002)(74316002)(53546011)(81166006)(6116002)(3846002)(790700001)(8676002)(6306002)(8936002)(81156014)(33656002)(229853002)(4326008)(5660300001)(39060400002)(25786009)(5250100002)(107886003)(3280700002)(7736002)(2906002)(54906003)(478600001)(6246003)(106356001)(53936002)(316002)(93886005)(105586002)(3660700001)(19609705001)(2900100001)(90052001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB3373; H:DB4PR07MB425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 20f01769-47c7-4d89-33e3-08d543e00605
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(5600026)(4604075)(48565401081)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603307); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3373;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB3373:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR07MB337320C80C760A86876899B6E90B0@VI1PR07MB3373.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(101472597685257)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(3231023)(11241501184)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3373; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3373;
x-forefront-prvs: 05220145DE
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia-bell-labs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB4PR07MB4259163AC5445D2F57637BFE90B0DB4PR07MB425eurprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia-bell-labs.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 20f01769-47c7-4d89-33e3-08d543e00605
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Dec 2017 17:19:39.3501 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB3373
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/hAgsAQYI2iadg91M2kSxrbFxbmY>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:19:48 -0000

The paper we published at HPSR 2015 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7483103/ ) indeed emphasizes the application of GSP to high-speed links, where the simplicity of the scheme is most beneficial.

If “conjunction with flow isolation” means combination of the algorithm with a flow queueing arrangement, there is logically no restriction in realizing it. We tested FQ-GSP on ns2, getting similar results as with other FQ-AQM schemes (never worse, never overwhelmingly better in the scenarios we looked at). Since the algorithmic simplicity is not as critical in lower-speed links, we thought there was little value in trying to add one more scheme to an already crowded space.

Also (and this is just my opinion), I don’t think that combining FQ and AQM is a good idea, because it imposes a single policy on all flows despite the variety of their needs. I like a plain FQ with large buffer much better, because it guarantees bandwidth fairness and makes every application solely responsible for the queuing delay it gets.
Andrea


From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:chromatix99@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Francini, Andrea (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) <andrea.francini@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>; Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>; aqm@ietf.org; Lautenschlaeger, Wolfram (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?


Reading the spec, it looks very much as though it's tuned for implementation in relatively simple, high-speed nodes.  It doesn't look at all like it would work in conjunction with flow isolation, which is inherently a much more effective idea when feasible to deploy - which it should be at speeds up to at least 1Gbps.

However, I could see some use for GSP when combined with host isolation, at nodes aggregating a large number of subcriber hosts' traffic and thus requiring very high aggregate throughput.  Host isolation doesn't require as many resources as full flow isolation, and is typically implemented anyway as part of per-subscriber provisioning.

If tests are carried out, that might be the best scenario to start with.

- Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email