Dear Simon,
> On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:31, Simon Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Section 7.2 does not discuss testing of a very common scenario for network
> edge devices - no congestion, and single flow. There are issues with some
> AQMs reducing goodput in these scenarios, and there is a trade off between
> the achievable latency and maximizing goodput here. The recommendation should
> include testing of these common and potential problem regimes, In particular
> long RTT and very low numbers of flows are of concern.
>
In section 5.2, we have the following test:
"
5.2. Recommended tests
[ … ]
o To evaluate the impact of the RTT value on the AQM performance and
the intra-protocol fairness (the fairness for the flows using the
same paths/congestion control), for each run, two flows (Flow1 and
Flow2) should be introduced. For each experiment, the set of RTT
SHOULD be the same for the two flows and in [5ms;560ms].
“
We have 2 flows to have the same load as in the “inter-RTT fairness” scenario
that is presented in the same section and this is not a “MUST” requirement.
This scenario is somehow "very common” - no congestion - scenario.
We may reduce the number of flow to 1 for that specific scenario, but I am not
quite
sure to understand the rationale of such change if the objective is to evaluate
not debug an AQM.
> The current definition of mild congestion results in enough flows to not test
> the problem areas.
>
Indeed, this is why, in section 5.2, we propose a lower level of congestion
than in the mild congestion scenario.
Kind regards,
Nicolas
> Simon
>
>
> On 2015-06-29 05:03, [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 : AQM Characterization Guidelines
>> Authors : Nicolas Kuhn
>> Preethi Natarajan
>> Naeem Khademi
>> David Ros
>> Filename : draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05.txt
>> Pages : 35
>> Date : 2015-06-29
>>
>> Abstract:
>> Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
>> of performance issues. These performance issues can be addressed by
>> some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
>> combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
>> The IETF Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling working group
>> was formed to standardize AQM schemes that are robust, easily
>> implementable, and successfully deployable in today's networks. This
>> document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
>> characterizations of AQM proposals. This document also helps in
>> ascertaining whether any given AQM proposal should be taken up for
>> standardization by the AQM WG.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05
>>
>>
>> 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
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
