Re: [Bloat] RED against bufferbloat

[MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN <luca.muscariello@orange.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]

On 02/26/2015 03:18 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN wrote:
>
>> Done with the vendor itself with related NDA etc. It takes longer to 
>> set the agreement than coding the system. The problem is that this 
>> process is not ok. An ISP cannot maintain someone else product if it 
>> is closed.
>
> Do you have a requirement document that makes sense to the people 
> programming these ASICs for vendors? When I try to explain what needs 
> to be done I usually run into very frustrating discussions.
>

I think there are people in this list that should be able to answer to 
this question better than me.

AFAIK the process is complex because even vendors use network processors 
they don't build and
traffic management is developed by the chipco in the chip. Especially 
for the segment we are considering here.
In the end the dequeue process is always managed  by someone else and 
mechanisms and their implementations opaque.
You can do testing on the equipment and do some reverse engineering. 
What a waste of time...

This is why single queue AQM is preferred by vendors, because it does 
not affect current product lines
and the enqueue is easier to code. FQ requires to recode the dequeue or 
to shadow the hardware dequeue.

My experience is not based on providing a requirement document, well we 
tried that first,
but on joint coding with the chipco because you need to see a lot of 
chip internals.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2136 bytes --]