Vishal Misra <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> > <http://dna-pubs.cs.columbia.edu/citation/paperfile/23/MisraInfocom01-AQM-Controller.pdf> >... > One thing to note though that hasn't changed all these years is if you > look at Section VII.A of our PI paper linked above, the full benefits > of AQM are realized in conjunction with ECN. On a bottlenecked link, > if you reduce delay (by controlling it via a mechanims like PI(E) or > CoDel), unless you have ECN implemented you will end up increasing > loss rates which may not be a good thing.
I wish we'd discuss ECN more here, and state some benefit of its use; perhaps even discuss how to route-around its misuse along the path. We should (IMHO) note that it's many years since its use in congestion control could possibly be "the same as packet drop" -- and by the nature of AQM, packets need to be ECN-marked before anything must be dropped due to buffer overflow. Obviously (IMHO), an ECN-capable packet which encounters buffer overflow needs to be dropped: not held until it can be ECN-marked and forwarded. -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
