Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, I actually still don't understand the concept of "developing > congestion". For me "congestion" means there is a sustained, constant, > non-trivial buffer fill. So "incipient congestion" doesn't compute at all. > I understand this term has been used before, but that doesn't help me > understand the reasoning behind the wording. For me sending a congestion > signal, means saying there is congestion. It's not saying there is > developing congestion (whatever that might be).
I agree that "developing congestion" doesn't convey the same meaning to all readers. When I suggested we use "incipient congestion", I was thinking of the queueing-theory definition. > I would greatly appreciate if someone could point me to text explaining > this so I can better understand the reasoning behind this wording. I recommend my slides from IETF-77: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/77/slides/iccrg-7.pdf starting with slide 11; and the Bauer_Clark_Lehr_2009 paper it refers to (Section 3 of that paper). Briefly, the Queuing Theory definition is the most useful for control-loop purposes: " " congestion is said to occur if the arrival rate into a system exceeds " the service rate of the system at a point in time. This is what I meant "incipient" congestion to mean. (NB it _does_ make sense to talk of "incipient congestion" persisting for a longer period of time, believe it or not!) -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
