> On Mar 15, 2016, at 12:52 AM, Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-02: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For my own edification I assume that the latency target is expected to > fall within > > o LATENCY_LOW = 5 ms > > o LATENCY_HIGH = 200 ms. > > but presumably it's most usable at the bottom end of that range? > > why is the lower bound at 5ms? is it simply unreasonable to target below > that or is it bounded by the resource contention of the subscribers.
I suspect you could set the lower bound as finely as you liked. The issue becomes the probability of an overshoot (or maybe it's an undershoot): you want to keep the queue relatively shallow in general, but you don't really want it to run dry, and you're approximating the behavior of a phase-locked loop (which is the origin of the equations). Note that Codel has similar parameters.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
