All, I'm not sure if we can reach good test coverage if we apply more and more detailed "realistic" test cases, particularly if we are looking into the future. The more detailed the test cases are, the more relevant others we leave out.
Shouldn't we more concentrate on what we expect from a good AQM? The only thing we might expect from an AQM is to prevent greedy TCP sources from drawing buffers permanently towards full state, instead of the much better almost empty state, while maintaining full link utilization. In all other situations, I'm convinced, AQM cannot improve a lot. But at least, in these cases, it should not make things worse. Of course the greedy TCP case can be overlaid by others (unresponsive flows, application paced flows, a renewal process of short lived flows, synchronized start of flows etc.etc.), and we should take this into account. But we should not expect a lot if those "others" dominate the scenario. Example: An overlay of finite flows arriving as a renewal process with inter arrival time T (seconds) and flow size S (bits). And a link capacity of C. In cases with C < T*S the link collapses with an infinite number of uncompleted flows, each of almost zero rate. In the opposite case, C > T*S the link cannot be loaded permanently at 100% since the traffic offer is simply not there. There is little to gain by AQM. It is only a thin range short before the collapse. Wolfram _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
