Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <3503D2F6-8EB1-4236-B1C8-0FA9459CF4AD@comcast.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 17:00:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B26CE814-2C54-4179-A8D5-5FF6D435C68D@gmx.de>
References: 
 <LV2PR01MB7622AB269736527A859CA8259FE92@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com>
 <EF9FC229-2CA8-4809-B554-9F67172F1A25@gmx.de>
 <3503D2F6-8EB1-4236-B1C8-0FA9459CF4AD@comcast.com>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood=40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:WZLN5LU4hm4=;6kbmRGmcaTluIqiAp0eQLP8noux
 rxThX8qenqtCZDydiod97oSGU4sR1+SZ8mVQwCJqrTVdXpV1zLbQ0ZSDG3FO7gkFRgW9h5HZS
 rrz29XICKRuwLInG4wF6AddCzH47frISA9lb+4e1734mObu3nLmzw3OZ3FT5n3WBBOQanVUAY
 hH2QCg3Z2TsXk1K8iFpXh6RLlLMu5piD/w80wy+W3uIxf55UdqeMjjXfglEz5QZgVNDBT7Ic6
 R45T5U/FImLPdy3XKoLj10gxmjomVSOCOFXXcwpzAW+S9CpIdieah45QDJAePMIipNR1JvKOT
 Dm9l3zMMQ2et3gEKAd30Uey25tVW4ug/MRY061BQFNqXBxuj4bgeOaoqwpSVbbHNasLEoROo7
 Xo7vmZAzVH/WUviMXw9cMPTF7Q3+Lk558jl/dlHgqBsVa9coiA8qxAmf7NRzCqWc2CeGi65DV
 ET4hiL3zbVfXX16Tm/fz6qyC9UgV3KSHqRrcPh6D1SsJZ0qgtYcPOmgZqV5RegVbvv5aBxVuW
 3hMtuoBtoc0WLpmKupHQbVUdrnPlyTjUtJj0dIwryYVbZKGwLAdxlub8iHVr70g1A/cgHMK9a
 Pz6iNWcgPTGns86pZfQB8G/hC3IhMA9QzYC9WdWETlZhoySUFrmxcTIyPoDm7IYiwFxY3go/p
 Woz+TtRY3R7aqOLTaJC3AauLMb0BxAFIlarCHa5Uo1SMCjquSQl6dzE2cQ/h/JChu4T5OS0z0
 AhUipFEzhk0GaPuKibZiK1zuOJM+u5HRlEahuItJ5OdXZbyxyAgYNEvCxaygdKrqbhqQD1GJu
 Ozxpq7qcibpUtxPpkAp0zu+kasJ5YLwmEwSLy6UA+Ix2I=
Message-ID-Hash: DMTWCNNH2SRXA464PFIBFEXB6P5HCIBU
CC: "Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta)" <michael.overcash@cox.com>,
 "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Btsvwg=5D_Re=3A_WGLC_for_A_NQB_PHB_for_Differentiated_Services_?=
 =?utf-8?q?=28draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb=29_to_end_27th_May_2024=2E?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/rSqx11J5cU-7Nax05nmXkOo6Y44>

Hi Jason,


> On 21. May 2024, at 15:57, Livingood, Jason =
<jason_livingood=3D40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>=20
> On 5/21/24, 02:34, "Sebastian Moeller" wrote:
>=20
>> [SM] Could you be a bit more explicit, what exactly did you test, =
what was posiztive and did yu also look for side effects?
>=20
> While you directed this question to Michael, we have tested this as =
well in our field trials. We have for example, tested single queue with =
AQM and looked at p99 latency under load and jitter as well as median & =
max bitrate for different application flows - then turned on NQB LL and =
observed the same for the classic and LL queues. What we have found =
generally is that the bitrates, working latency, and jitter for classic =
traffic with single queue AQM and dual queue LL is the same; classic =
queue applications do not experience degradation.

[SM] Puzzled, how can the bitrate in the C-queue not change when there =
is also quantitative traffic in the L-queue?

> At the same time, the NQB flow experiences working latency that =
approaches idle latency, with consistently low latency.

[SM] Well, we know that priority scheduling does work and will give a =
sufficiently sparse traffic in the priority class shorter delays (and =
more potential throughput)... so that is not all that surprising.
Surprising is that according to your argument that improvement in =
service did not come at a cost for other traffic. And I question that, =
priority scheduling does not magically create more capacity or transmit =
opportunities, for every packet you treat to less delay, some other =
packet(s) will be treated to more delay. We can argue that the amount of =
this additional delay is insignificant, but that is a different claim =
than 'it does not exist' as you seem to be making above.


Regards
	Sebastian

>=20
> JL
>=20
>=20