Hi Yuchung, Bob, (w/o chair hat)
Wouldn't be a sensible reaction, in the scenario sketched by Yuchung, to have at least one MSS memory available at all times for L4S queues, and drop from the classic queue if that cann't be guaranteed earlier? Best regards, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie > Sent: Samstag, 08. August 2015 13:41 > To: Yuchung Cheng > Cc: Bob Briscoe; AQM IETF list > Subject: Re: [aqm] New I-D: draft-briscoe-aqm-dualq-coupled-00.txt > > Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Interesting work. Do the queues share the same memory pool? > > I don't believe the draft says one way or the other; but the concept > would seem to call for separate memory. > > > I hypothesize that with current ECN deployment, the bad (reno) guy > > will take up C_Q. What happens when the nice guy (dctcp) knocks the > > door when the house is full? the strict priority policy in the doc > > isn't clear about which butt to boot ... > > The pseudocode in Appendix A isn't the easiest to read; but it does > show that the L4S queue goes out first (with CE marking) before the > Classic queue. > > The draft is also clear that the example applies AQM on exit from the > queues. Thus the Classic queue (in this example) could easily fill > available memory; so your question is appropriate. > > The draft is a bit hand-wavy about what happens when there's too much > L4S traffic. IMHO, _one_ necessary feature would be to limit the size of > the L4S queue and drop L4S traffic that won't fit. > > -- > John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
