IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] New Version Notification for draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation-00.txt

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 24 June 2014 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 6AA761A0641 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 VWPUwJ0t3xHn for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0F091A0417 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1560; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1403640065; x=1404849665; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=We9lEGKCUzAPmAjpmBTIBTGb6ax/eO+R6fsN3xTeivs=; b=WHBArdWwsVlraJjXEfSC1YUNzRHz8bX3a0HGfSjJH/PIaiNxCBMvXqrj V5eisKRgj/zV/30NH/K1I6JiFy+wxa3OTiU2Mv0/fCDES7NiB8Whxe36o tw6Tyr0FEOz2Pe7vBbUuQ1RJ/4RPXqqcYaME02bR8N+q+UUIFMMeP9H7t I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicFAIjYqVOtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagw2BLK0jll0BgQ0WdYQDAQEBAwF3AgULAgEIRjITEgIEDgUOiCADCQjJRheMV4IlB4MtgRYBBIRjBY0ggUGFEYF3jWGGCoIAgUKCMA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,539,1400025600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="55642562"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2014 20:01:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5OK12QO014126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:01:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.143]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:01:01 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "dhavey@yahoo.com" <dhavey@yahoo.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] New Version Notification for draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPj+cFbzbzbfyYwUGMpqf8z0Cyxw==
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:01:01 +0000
Message-ID: <A1DBF044-755D-4382-9AE8-930180358D0A@cisco.com>
References: <1403639157.90844.YahooMailBasic@web141606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1403639157.90844.YahooMailBasic@web141606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.121]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0CB2B31-3A11-40AE-8441-60738A870909"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/jgld3jgyFpAepXcw9bVs4RmWt08
Cc: RichardScheffenegger <rs@netapp.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, grenville armitage <garmitage@swin.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [aqm] New Version Notification for draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation-00.txt
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, 24 Jun 2014 20:01:07 -0000

On Jun 24, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Daniel Havey <dhavey@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So IMHO it really doesn't matter except in the weird corner case where a a running flow has already bloated the queue and then we switch on the AQM.

That actually has me a little worried with the 100 ms delay built into codel. Imagine, if you will, that you have a deep buffer at the bottleneck and a relatively short RTT, and are moving a large file. I could imagine codel’s delay allowing a session to build a large backlog and then “suddenly turning on AQM”. on a 10 MS link with O(200) packets queue depth, for example, you could build 100 ms plus of data in the queue, spend the delay mostly emptying it, and then drop the last queued packet because 100 ms had gone by, there was still data in the queue, and the next packet had sat there longer than 5 ms.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email