I have a couple of concerns with the recommendations of this document as
they stand. Firstly - implementing AQM widely will reduce or even
possibly completely remove the ability to use delay based congestion
control in order to provide a low priority or background service. I
think there should be a recommendation that if you are implementing AQM
then you should also implement a low priority service using DSCP, e.g.
CS1. This will enable these low priority applications to continue to
work in an environment where AQM is increasingly deployed. Unlike DSCPs
that give higher priority access to the network, a background or low
priority DSCP is not going to be gamed to get better service!
Secondly, there is a recommendation that AQM be implemented both within
classes of service, and across all classes of service. This does not
make sense. If you are implementing AQM across multiple classes of
service, then you are making marks or drops while ignoring what class
the data belongs to. This destroys the very unfairness that you wanted
to achieve by implementing the classes in the first place.
Simon
On 5/14/2014 11:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet
Scheduling Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue
Management
Authors : Fred Baker
Godred Fairhurst
Filename : draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04.txt
Pages : 25
Date : 2014-05-14
Abstract:
This memo presents recommendations to the Internet community
concerning measures to improve and preserve Internet performance. It
presents a strong recommendation for testing, standardization, and
widespread deployment of active queue management (AQM) in network
devices, to improve the performance of today's Internet. It also
urges a concerted effort of research, measurement, and ultimate
deployment of AQM mechanisms to protect the Internet from flows that
are not sufficiently responsive to congestion notification.
The note largely repeats the recommendations of RFC 2309, updated
after fifteen years of experience and new research.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
