Hi Fred, All, Let me an additional thought to this issue.
Given that (W)RED has been deployed extensively in operators' networks, and most vendors are still shipping equipment with (W)RED, concern is that obsoleting 2309 would discourage research on trying to find good configurations to make (W)RED work. We had previously given a presentation at the ICCRG on why RED can still provide value to operators (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-iccrg-0.pdf). We have a paper at Globecom 2014 that explains this study much better, but I cannot share a link to it until the proceedings are available. One of the major reasons why operators chose not to deploy (W)RED was a number of studies and research which gave operators conflicting messages on the value of (W)RED and appropriate parameters to use. Some of these are mentioned in the presentation above. In it we show that the previous studies which showed low value for RED used web traffic which had very small file sizes (of the order of 5-10 packets), which reduces the effectives of all AQMs which work by dropping or ECN marking of flows to indicate congestion. Today's traffic is composed of mostly multi-media traffic like HAS or video progressive download which has much larger file sizes and can be controlled much better with AQMs and in our research we show that RED can be quite effective with this traffic, with little tuning needed for typical residential access flows. Prefer John's proposal of updating 2309 rather than obsoleting, but if we can have some text in Fred's draft acknowledging the large deployment of (W)RED and the need to still find good configurations - that may work. I can volunteer to provide that text. -Shahid. -----Original Message----- From: aqm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:06 AM To: John Leslie Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309 On Jul 3, 2014, at 10:22 AM, John Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: > It would be possible for someone to argue that restating a > recommendation from another document weakens both statements; but I > disagree: We should clearly state what we mean in this document, and I > believe this wording does so. The argument for putting it in there started from the fact that we are obsoleting 2309, as stated in the charter. I would understand a document that updates 2309 to be in a strange state if 2309 is itself made historic or obsolete. So we carried the recommendation into this document so it wouldn't get lost. _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
