Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4

"Fred Baker (fred)" <> Mon, 06 May 2013 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840BA21F90DF for <>; Mon, 6 May 2013 09:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.372
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k+vi97YQRbL6 for <>; Mon, 6 May 2013 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A222421F90B1 for <>; Mon, 6 May 2013 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2163; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1367858946; x=1369068546; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=9YHVV7+dWmhANfsG9ObKYD03cNskbPNs9wkScd5f1Ew=; b=lCK222NIbJkiRE2gDJhrN+pw6ScVkjEAH/2O0lkxVl2gBoTcSvxem/Am 80rKbUzN7/EK1zKWMa8YlyrQKj+XnASPtGgsKVDGHVmq6HBTZMP5JS2zM HGm3qTe6uaMc9eRYElXpiEpKlj/NV3g4SxmY4LiunhNIdozCJTOw2pP6L o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAMHdh1GtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABQgwc3vnyBAhZ0gh8BAQEDAQEBATc0CwULAgEIDgoKFBAnCyUCBA4FCId+Bgy/bI5+AjEHgnJhA5NfhHWQDoMNgic
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,622,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="206973149"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 May 2013 16:49:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r46Gn6Te012608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 May 2013 16:49:06 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 6 May 2013 11:49:05 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
To: Michael Welzl <>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4
Thread-Index: AQHOSnmeXY+bsHW5GUOsXJsz145jDQ==
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 16:49:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 16:49:11 -0000

On May 6, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Michael Welzl <> wrote:

> Hi,
> First of all, I'd like to say that I agree with all the recommendations you asked about so far. I hesitated to answer as I wasn't sure if a ton of "yes I do" responses are useful?!
> About this recommendation, I agree regarding what it actually recommends, but I have a comment about the wording. This bit:
> "Hence, Active Queue Management algorithms that are effective with all of those transports and the applications that use them are to be preferred."
> sounds as if it would be the most normal thing in the world for an AQM algorithm to make a decision based on the transport protocol, which I think it shouldn't. To me, ECN is an IP-layer signal and routers shouldn't have to investigate what's layered on it (which may go beyond just looking at the "protocol" field in case of tunnels) in order to make their decisions.

Thanks. I certainly agree that we should not be making transport-specific modifications; that was one thing that bothered me with cones, that it seemed to expect a different ECN encoding based on the DSCP. My point in this, if you can think of a better way to phrase it, is that the AQM algorithm someone implements needs to demonstrably work with the transports and applications it will be affecting.

> I tried to come up with a better phrasing but failed... maybe it could be an idea to just add a sentence after this one, saying something like "Such algorithms do not need to consider any information in the packet beyond its IP header."
> Cheers,
> Michael
> On 6. mai 2013, at 16:00, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> Do we generally agree with the recommendation of This is the question of ensuring that AQM technologies are applicable to all Internet traffic - not just TCP, but UDP, SCTP, and so on.
>> _______________________________________________
>> aqm mailing list