[tsvwg] Technical discussion 4 of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-08

David Pullen <david.pullen@broadcom.com> Mon, 17 December 2018 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <david.pullen@broadcom.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3D7128D0C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.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 4OWtMepW7mnx for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (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 D6A7F130F0E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id i7so15365869qtj.10 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:14:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iIDvIZMDNM1dp17LjiaApBRfps/TRdMyObopiW1ny60=; b=Zj5VuXzvTMXI1O3zVYWiW1sOp5eBTCU4NXCtMH0tL8pyDf084S1UuoP6cNGgRURSOn WyXSMyKNRp3/B/vt765fGOJ2g0EhKMPELwnbFtiJrmlxn4C1A9Ra+BXGGvwpp1qT8u7z SM6VWK2ot1lNF4BLrv4ijbtyHOh+H0UrYhN+I=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iIDvIZMDNM1dp17LjiaApBRfps/TRdMyObopiW1ny60=; b=gzDx4Y/yTcxNo/rJOblh2xZtm5CcSfvA41ku3Cj7iEw4K+UYCjyVuHqWpjHL2TCwEu vzGuUgqE2KjsKTcIdoJEwlz7ywLNfnUNsA0vuhbHjO60qExMwQMgihDjIbMEKivMNGas pZHPMetM2fSl/BAR0UztRiZxUBcTaYgnV2fprSDnAB7EtbljC/OaLsSVYsR3VaIU5grw xwVTzFcGdeS3LMkoTGppXWSybUgdSm8cZuiBB5z7nvBVjZ5u5EcC7HryWuXWmYhq8NvL L18iuN/Nun4gELQS5mKs7ztHQ37Kl2XY+zRbn74YKg1GaRBFtocfvf60IZk3t0RuH2XK iqiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWamot4lkDYpZwKfUGdrYm+l1dwUWI9Y1n9YBp+kIj2JLrlu9pQ1 GIPpoIDaUY2pjxIf6HV5WO3l2QoWyFWR+aKnuC4xlw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/X7IyEmGZB8G8y9/owJSfsoIayKb82TJ4pAnhj+Z1bJRoWieoefbUx/oFsHpn+puMlehMVtQf/9FqoGvYZaRTA=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2b99:: with SMTP id m25mr14618061qtm.36.1545074090826; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:14:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Pullen <david.pullen@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:14:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA+foQWP+b--8J273vY47FtkzNoPSsPMoQm_rL+sOitZ4fu7oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000565240057d3c989d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/eyc-f3BsrOSOqYZUT-B0UDOiq8A>
Subject: [tsvwg] Technical discussion 4 of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-08
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:14:54 -0000

Hi Bob,

In section 2.5.2:

Total packets arriving, enqueued and dequeued to distinguish tail discard
from proactive AQM discard;

It isn't clear to me how one distinguishes between tail discard and AQM
discard with these counters.

If a packet is tail discarded, is "packets arriving" incremented? Or do the
counters not get incremented at all for tail discard?

If a packet is AQM discarded, are "packets arriving" and "packets enqueued"
incremented?

Some AQM implementations may implement AQM discard at the head of the
queue, and others may implement AQM discard at the tail of the queue. The
counters should be defined such that any differences in implementation
still yield the same results in terms of counter state.

Thanks,
  - Dave

David Pullen
Distinguished Engineer  |  Wired Networking, Cable Modems
Broadcom

office: 678.475.3143  |  mobile: 678.477.4108  |  fax: 770.232.0211
4385 River Green Parkway  |  Duluth, GA 30096
david.pullen@broadcom.com   |   broadcom.com