On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Villamizar > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Including unrealistic scenarios, like going from near zero traffic to 10 >> interfaces feeding one at full speed until overflow occurs, is >> counterproductive. > > > It is actually a problem that keeps many people busy because a number of > data center switches have very high port count with very small buffers. > Some people address these buy using switches with bigger buffers, but > that's not a luxury that everyone indulges in. > Fair point about the incast problem and I personally think AQMs designed for data centers should address that. > That is why I specifically asked the question at the AQM meeting about > applicability of AQM to all types of networks/switches. I was told the > answer is "yes" and so I would like to see this scenario addressed as well. > > Below is my personal opinion, but hopefully Fred can clarify this better based on the AQM recommendations draft: "applicability of AQM to all types of networks/switches" => "yes" "applicability of *any* AQM to all types of networks/switches" => "no" > Perhaps AQM cannot help this, but hopefully it won't hurt. Trying to do > fancy things with small buffers is challenging. > AQM will most likely to help from data centers to the access links, and so on. But we may possibly need different AQMs for different network scenarios; The fact that an AQMs should be auto-tunable doesn't imply that it can be applied everywhere and we may need different auto-tunable AQMs specifically designed for different networks (ideally better if we could use fewer of them and they could work everywhere). I hope I'm not wrong. > > Anoop > Naeem
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
