On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Well, note that we’re not saying to pull RED out of the network; we’re saying to not make it the default. Note that even in the networks you mention, (W)RED is not the default configuration; you have to give it several parameters, and therefore have to actively turn it on. > 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. The existing draft doesn’t mention any specific AQM algorithms. It seems to me that the more consistent approach would be to write a short draft documenting WRED, that the WG could pass along as informational or experimental on the basis of not meeting the requirements of being self-configuring/tuning, at the same time as it passes along others as PS or whatever. > -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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
