Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based

[Naeem Khademi <[e-mail]>]

This should have probably been brought in different thread...

comments follow inline

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Preethi Natarajan <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
>
> From: Naeem Khademi <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:05 AM
> To: Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>, Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Preethi Natarajan <[e-mail]>
>
> Subject: Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based
>
>
>
> Below is my personal opinion, but hopefully Fred can clarify this better
> based on the AQM recommendations draft:
>
> "applicability of AQM to all types of networks/switches" => "yes"
>
> "applicability of *any* AQM to all types of networks/switches" => "no"
>
>
>> Perhaps AQM cannot help this, but hopefully it won't hurt.  Trying to do
>> fancy things with small buffers is challenging.
>>
>
> AQM will most likely to help from data centers to the access links, and so
> on. But we may possibly need different AQMs for different network
> scenarios; The fact that an AQMs should be auto-tunable doesn't imply that
> it can be applied everywhere and we may need different auto-tunable AQMs
> specifically designed for different networks (ideally better if we could
> use fewer of them and they could work everywhere). I hope I'm not wrong.
>
>
>
> Again, please hold on. Even if its personal opinion, I would state facts
> backed with evidence instead of "hopes", since the community's thought
> process is at stake here.
>
> From the preliminary results we've seen, PIE has been able to address data
> center issues quite well. There is no evidence thus far why PIE's control
> law with auto-tuned parameters cannot adapt to data center or other network
> environments.
>

Taking what is mentioned in above sentence granted, there is no evidence if
it cannot or if it can and this point is also orthogonal to my response to
Anoop which was about his question at IETF about AQM deployment in general.



>
> Given that, its too early to "hope" that different network scenarios needdifferent AQM schemes. Of course, different network environments may choose
> to deploy different AQM schemes for various other reasons, which is not the
> point of discussion here.
>

It should have been on another thread. Sorry :-)


>
> Preethi
>

Naeem