Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 12 July 2011 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254E221F9164 for <homegate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.942
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.343, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ziTGCZKV9s77 for <homegate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E63E21F9165 for <homegate@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1497; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310479460; x=1311689060; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6I846/EcNDQuG2wy815o5ACN5KvoEQOpKe3odfonvdw=; b=mvTQ6f+jMdz1YP1qIskxXSEuvbPUevTqps1Yya0gz2VvQqjPTNEx64+W Sm38LK5MhyJOX9HlbPompqxoSY/PLXqtvmOtpV65WjlYbFQ4Y/tDYbCDn kVTrVjppHpE2WbqkcqoS9bno3uOXrgI3iCP6lPL1vkt7KBiSA8KeIHVv/ s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAOdTHE6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABTpy93rRWeGoVbXwSSXIR/i2g
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,521,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="2135516"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2011 14:04:19 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sjc-vpn6-2000.cisco.com [10.21.127.208]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6CE4IKC007878; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:04:18 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:04:19 -0400
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:04:19 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7FC8F60B-469E-4635-B5C0-4FD6B9AC30F8@g11.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:04:09 -0400
Message-Id: <3C0C6442-E0A9-4B44-80AB-2BCDFA029D6B@cisco.com>
References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <7FC8F60B-469E-4635-B5C0-4FD6B9AC30F8@g11.org.uk>
To: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: homegate@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <homegate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homegate>
List-Post: <mailto:homegate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:04:21 -0000

On Jul 12, 2011, at 9:11 AM, ken carlberg wrote:

> ...I was wondering where something like buffer-bloat, and in particular supporting/managing AQM, would fit in given the above.  Jim Getty's talk at the last IETF meeting was well received and appeared to open some eyes to an issue that seemed to have been easily overseen.  My impression is that work in Home Networks could help address some of the items that Jim brought up in his presentation.

I think that the need is felt in home, SOHO, and hotel (eg, broadband last mile) networks, and suggestions I have made along such lines have focused on them. However, the topic is closer to the charter of tsvwg IMHO, except in the ways that it manifests in broadband interfaces (the fact of the router, modem, CMTS/DSLAM, and upstream router being separate entities with separate buffers). The problem is in essence that ECN/AQM is generally not implemented in such networks, in part because there is a sense on the carrier side that loss is a bad thing, and in part because tuning the algorithms can be a pain. What the Georgia Tech folks have worked out, as much as anything, is an acceptable configuration driven by user perceptions rather than research optimizations (eg, for them it's not about finding the absolute knee of the curve and making the combined queue be as thin as possible, but finding a pragmatic solution that is predictable and acceptable to the typical user).