On 15 Dec 2017 19:19, "Francini, Andrea (Nokia - US/Murray Hill)" < [email protected]> wrote: > > If “conjunction with flow isolation” means combination of the algorithm with a flow queueing arrangement, there is logically no restriction in realizing it. We tested FQ-GSP on ns2, getting similar results as with other FQ-AQM schemes (never worse, never overwhelmingly better in the scenarios we looked at). Since the algorithmic simplicity is not as critical in lower-speed links, we thought there was little value in trying to add one more scheme to an already crowded space.
Perhaps a better wording would be, "it seems very unlikely to outperform existing AQMs in conjunction with FQ". > Also (and this is just my opinion), I don’t think that combining FQ and AQM is a good idea, because it imposes a single policy on all flows despite the variety of their needs. I like a plain FQ with large buffer much better, because it guarantees bandwidth fairness and makes every application solely responsible for the queuing delay it gets. I have a couple of compelling arguments in favour of an AQM-FQ combination: 1: ECN aware flows are able to avoid incurring packet losses, by receiving and acting on information about link congestion when they reach their fair-share throughput. That should be music to the ears of those industry members who are apparently allergic to packet loss. 2: When it is unfortunately necessary to put the shaper downstream of the physical bottleneck link (ie. when consumers must compensate for an ISP's bufferbloat), AQM is the only reliable way to keep the bottleneck queue empty. Combining it with FQ ensures that only the saturating flows receive congestion signals and potentially lose packets. - Jonathan Morton
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
