Re: [tsvwg] NQB versus WIFI access classes Gedankenexperiment

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> Mon, 09 September 2019 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6093012010D for <>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g8v76dKkFdxy for <>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED63A12006E for <>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=20161023; t=1568030406; bh=AguUnpqj3JbgywgQvxoe5TMwtWEsilNp/aXim0h8ZO8=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=e7qU+kMvzvWHP45PH2jvRfJIblKKOPiePZZqhb/5njqctVLU8rMNPKTw1J/6hNkww Y9zFLWf0Pc3MKp+0zC4lHljKE7USFp9NtzOuG8Mp6bT3Tah59wnv9Viv21QLTB2pLW dRToLUDULDjnYVorBAY7oY7wnJlGUzw6T1EV1bhzE2KU6kNW4uDl/GcdVUCob9MSE/ WzC1tLGxz9iWh7BnIFQm4GyOs7pQenIzwZ6QHLXJJaRCooeGEgIIYajwtPvpxcSK7K rKmPK4VdGBZUJzVLq/uxEPXq5jS61NuvKJ+mkFzNU1uIzNtvfq8mjNrwwzMDZUubXG HKenSjDpl1G7w==
To: Sebastian Moeller <>, tsvwg IETF list <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 13:00:04 +0100
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] NQB versus WIFI access classes Gedankenexperiment
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 12:00:12 -0000

Sebastian Moeller <> writes:

> Dear List,
> since it seems clear to me that my objections against using AC_VI or
> AC_VO for indifferently for NQB marked packets, mainly falls on deaf
> ears.
> Let me introduce a small Gedankenexperiment to demonstrate why this a
> patently problematic idea especially in the light of the stated goals
> of the NQB marking and L4S in general.
> Let me propose the following scenario (sticking somewhat to Bob's numbers):
> An dualQ type AQM on the ISP side of the access link which tries to
> split (a gross-rate of) 120 Mbps between a QB and a NQB queue more or
> less equally*. So full saturation steady state will be:
> 60 Mbps QB traffic
> 60 Mbps NQB traffic
> Now let's look exactly at that saturating-load situation that is
> surprisingly common on end-user internet access links (otherwise an
> NQB mark would not really be needed)
> The exact number of flows does not matter for my argument, but just to
> make things simple assume each flow takes of 10 Mbps of the
> gross-rate. So we have
> 6 * NQB flows @10Mbps each (say paced video streams), dscp marked 0x2A
> 6 * QB flows @10Mbps average (say non-paced bulk data flows), dscp "marked" 0x00
> On the end user side this data is flowing over wifi links from the CPE
> to the actual endpoints.
> As long as wifi rates stay >> 120 Mbps, things will just work out as
> intended by NQB more or less independent of which AC is assigned to
> NQB traffic.
> But now the neighbors come home and there is going to be channel
> contention in the RF-medium and achievable data rates for our example
> household drop to 60 Mbps.
> What the NQB /L4S approach seems to intend in that situation would be
> a grace-full reduction in rates for both NQB and QB flows ot an
> aggregate of ~30 Mbps each.
> But with NQB mapping to AC_VI/AC_VO what is going to happen ist, that
> the NQB flows will secure almost all of the tx-ops and hence starve
> out the QB-flows almost completely (doubly so, since the NQB airtime
> hogging will make it hard for QB data to reach the endpoints but also
> equally hard for ACKs from there to go back to the senders). The
> upstream dualQ AQM will see more or less NQB~60Mbps, QB~0Mbps, and
> will not help at al, since 60/0 is a valid traffic split.

It's worse than this: The maximum aggregation size for AC_VI and AC_VO
is way smaller than for AC_BE, so even without interference, the
capacity for NQB traffic is going to be smaller, so it doesn't take that
much traffic before it starts congesting the WiFi network...