On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> One of the the objectives of newer AQMs being defined here should be to > minimize tuning, but we should recognize that likely tuning or some > configuration cannot be eliminated altogether. > > FB: That's an opinion. One of the objectives of Van and Kathy's work, and > separately of Rong Pan et al's work, is to design an algorithm that may have > different initial conditions drawn from a table given the interface it finds > itself on, but requires no manual tuning. The great failure of RED, > recommended in RFC 2309, is not that it doesn't work when properly > configured; it's that real humans don't have the time to properly tune it > differently for each of the thousands of link endpoints in their networks. > There is no point in changing away from RED if that is also true of the > replacement. > > SA: You argue that "initial conditions" determine some of the parameters of > newer AQMs (like Codel and PIE), then those same initial conditions would > also determine some of the key parameters for RED/WRED. I'm simply going to point out that Van and Kathy spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to do exactly that, and it didn't pan out. Codel is their suggestion of a replacement that is largely auto-tuning within a specified range of situations. On your other points, please suggest text, and the WG can discuss whether they buy it.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
