Wesley Eddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > As TSV ADs, Martin and I have been wondering lately about > AQM work. > > At this point, thanks largely to Jim Gettys, we all know > about large buffers, and we know what bulk-transfer with > loss-based congestion control can do to interactive traffic > when large queues exist. > > We know one thing that can be done to help is the use of > AQMs, but the IETF is currently not doing a whole lot to > help in this regard.
This issue tends to fall in the cracks between areas. :^( TSV is the area best adapted to standardize AQM algorithms; but there is no mechanism to request a particular algorithm be used, or to report which algorithm was in use. It's not entirely clear where those mechanisms might fit; and of course passing parameters would be desirable... >... Particularly, I have wondered: > - Should we have a working group looking at AQMs? I have great difficulty imaging a charter. > - If so, does it make sense to shoot for Standards Track > specifications? Probably not yet. > - Would we be able to come up with actual requirements > on an AQM so that it's implementable for cheap in > hardware and software, and behaves well under load? That's the easy part. > - Would it be valuable to have a test suite for AQMs > similar to what ICCRG was doing for high-rate TCP? Not clear. > - Would it be valuable to have a BCP (or multiple) on > configuring "legacy AQM" like RED, or the use of AQM > metrics like "sojourn time" rather than variations of > the queue length? At the current state-of-the-art, No (IMHO). > - If any of this is of value, how much belongs in the > ICCRG versus TSV working groups? Clearly, anything can be chartered to ICCRG: but this doesn't typically lead to fast progress. I would suggest discussion in <tsv-area> of how to communicate algorithms and parameters. -- John Leslie <[email protected]>
