OK, I'll check through the AQM thread before the end of next week and
summarise what I think has been commented and what we have agreed to
change.

I think the latest discussion on requirements that change diffserv/ECN may
need a strong consensus - so it would be good to understand this.

Gorry

> Thanks.
>
> Gorry, Matt Mathis also said he would be putting together some notes.
>
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Bob Briscoe <[email protected]>
>  wrote:
>
>> Fred, Gorry, all,
>>
>> I promised to suggest text for draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation about
>> allowing the AQM's behaviour to be independent for ECN and non-ECN
>> packets. In the process, I realised we can't talk about independent AQMs
>> for ECN without also including Diffserv.
>>
>> This gets messy, because I believe a good AQM for BE traffic with and
>> without ECN, should remove much if not all the need for Diffserv. But we
>> can't ignore Diffserv.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________
>> {In Section 4: add another bullet between recommendations 2 & 3:}
>>
>> 3{New}. It SHOULD be possible to make different instances of an AQM
>> algorithm apply to different subsets of packets that share the same
>> queue. It SHOULD be possible to classify packets into these subsets at
>> least by ECN codepoint [RFC3168] and Diffserv codepoint [RFC2474] (or
>> the equivalent of these fields at lower layers).
>>
>> {Then a new section to expand on this before the current Section 4.3.}
>> 4.3{New}. Independent AQM Instances for ECN and Diffserv
>>
>> The recommendation to provide a separate instance of the AQM for ECN
>> packets goes beyond the assumptions of RFC 3168, which assumed that only
>> one instance of an AQM will handle both ECN-capable and non-ECN-capable
>> packets.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 8 issues in virtual infrastructure
> http://dcrocker.net/#fallacies
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>


_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Reply via email to