From: Naeem Khademi <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:06 PM To: Preethi Natarajan <[email protected]> Cc: curtis <[email protected]>, Michael Welzl <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based
> > This should have probably been brought in different thread... > > comments follow inline > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Preethi Natarajan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> From: Naeem Khademi <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:05 AM >> To: Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>, Michael Welzl <[email protected]>, >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Preethi Natarajan <[email protected]> >> >> Subject: Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Again, please hold on. Even if its personal opinion, I would state facts >> backed with evidence instead of "hopes", since the community's thought >> process is at stake here. >> >> From the preliminary results we've seen, PIE has been able to address data >> center issues quite well. There is no evidence thus far why PIE's control law >> with auto-tuned parameters cannot adapt to data center or other network >> environments. > > Taking what is mentioned in above sentence granted, there is no evidence if it > cannot or if it can and this point is also orthogonal to my response to Anoop > which was about his question at IETF about AQM deployment in general. Just pointing out the evidence here -- http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-iccrg-5.pdf The slides contain preliminary results from DC scenarios, showing PIE's parameters and adaptability to DC scenarios. Thank god for the IETF archives :) Thanks, Preethi
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
