IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Fri, 15 December 2017 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.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 858141293EE for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:15:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 VIAWBGqEwtDM for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 996D91293E9 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:15:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d141so10953972qkc.12 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:15:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ga4G6G2ZpYW7FMMwGYMY1LMIur3liLLYmMGu5igmi0Y=; b=Bk39x7+vaIIHsD8fdXXGTxXvXKPrrUdQcT5dTmVZRRMNwqd+qB368TbT/5bJ5DfOmE ZMkgePKzZcR2ncmNDl5ejzCiDCOfOhya+Um0PRUeRaQ8qlPz9KkQW66rwf6Ev4YtR0fx Xujf62DPQ2eiP9dY+5Kh/wseXu5kkHmcr3YgCtwuBvbteRTa3SQ+LUNlsiXMCC0IGLy5 CmoW0GmBzMjP93oI1XxpzrWOBNPdUu7TSAHwwPstY9d+3bxGqkgtrF6moRPRS0dMkUUw CPov7MdcMnuVN4r2dI8mWKahifEGy6YT0pvrQoIlBftZyBoc198ftgpXvJ56ZGitOukH wnnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ga4G6G2ZpYW7FMMwGYMY1LMIur3liLLYmMGu5igmi0Y=; b=cwh8G9/yVEDHA4NrGrLPRflkSXFA4Uf660ZQZD2RP0VrpEsfq18pr8qIZmympDT7yz JKp3T/4OR3AweL5ldqdJKgdjNCSL55UjFY8UqQV3AWwZ7eWHNrKFlhkALCUjGntkUops /N1U6LonlZiyOJjiUqtEmPrtpLn6BEbImfQuWtep1dDgfnfZqFt3ZW82qN6an2ZURaL7 pc+tFgko2sNsk4i+WIoBkRIRgri64b4xTPXwhqpNXa1plDlFJzIkwS2KWWQfzN0Lmoyt DEhlATzwkrlP8CdI7pxJWgv4S78tNJ+WlHB0EVHFrBXGNR0jGN1RjokkpQ00vfaiaFgd /5bQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJMFDBslVzMeu22U1JtBpZz2mrmwI8OSl0D8owZg/2e1APz0mjU DwrL/iHKuOAw7bVH215w/jFkzwWi1eRT4Ooiv8A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov7nMNTuCjRaN8q3COwmhmzyP31ZNcaHW5sWL47dcWHxrRsel5B2TZ9s/DpLjD258i1MkrHsIXoN5KvjrS8Zh4=
X-Received: by 10.55.192.221 with SMTP id v90mr20866850qkv.52.1513354548760; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:15:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.102.179 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:15:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.102.179 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:15:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <DB4PR07MB425231D6D323F2B4B6F09ADE90B0@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>
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:15:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJq5cE30GqXkFUv9J8tH8rnq3qeL+DUi=e4rVp3DdMiNgTh3rA@mail.gmail.com>
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" <aqm@ietf.org>, "Lautenschlaeger, Wolfram (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11479aa44c54bb05606350ba"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/vhnJ9bzjmsB3T_lYW_Rjt1Eh7c4>
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 16:15:51 -0000

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