From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x243.google.com (mail-qk0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6FF521F38A; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qkbw1 with SMTP id w1so2000794qkb.2; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5V2rmQAXigB3KoJ2sNxhwIjduKB+Lt+6BC9KIAREJkM=; b=FfLmNtbGiVM9/bIBChEKh/0fFqYoZ+OGklNi1hdQZnlhynjqbRBE5AnmI5gBeRS63+ au3MgbvnE17cL6TE2TDpHjPmyRJeFnf4yxFthpjvIgDJLeTWQ6asVDk+Cx0YsYNt4WIR NmqOQfHdV2rks1dZReukeg46wQEVKmMb8SzMhEhaaNo9EOhCwgqMoFK8+ztQ18Gupe4G +XpQAbnAaShWwWEORkCcazoBspdIZzIDZh/LCHnQqp8lQIsgExt9cWMrAlLwJuDDTkIl 1J8ryzVdx9dILQvTk9uKYrtzzuiJLFgRFIgUI/dJgi5djyUdmwHv7QzLiYvG1dNNDbBs zqxA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.238.22 with SMTP id j22mr19529183qhc.98.1434120260285; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.105.6 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:44:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: Daniel Havey To: David Lang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat Subject: Re: [Cake] active sensing queue management X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:44:50 -0000 On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:49 PM, David Lang wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Daniel Havey wrote: > >> We know that (see Kathy and Van's paper) that AQM algorithms only work >> when they are placed at the slowest queue. However, the AQM is placed >> at the queue that is capable of providing 8 Mbps and this is not the >> slowest queue. The AQM algorithm will not work in these conditions. > > > so the answer is that you don't deploy the AQM algorithm only at the > perimeter, you deploy it much more widely. > > Eventually you get to core devices that have multiple routes they can use to > get to a destination. Those devices should notice that one route is getting > congested and start sending the packets through alternate paths. > > Now, if the problem is that the aggregate of inbound packets to your > downstreams where you are the only path becomes higher than the available > downstream bandwidth, you need to be running an AQM to handle things. > > David Lang > Hmmmm, that is interesting. There might be a problem with processing power at the core though. It could be difficult to manage all of those packets flying through the core routers. David does bring up an interesting point though. The ASQM algorithm was originally designed to solve the "Uncooperative ISP" problem. I coined the phrase, but, you can fill in your own adjective to fit your personal favorite ISP :^) The paper doesn't indicate this because I got roasted by a bunch of reviewers for it, but, why not use an ASQM like algorithm other places than the edge. Suppose you are netflix and your ISP is shaping your packets? You cant do anything about the bandwidth reduction, but, you can at least reduce the queuing...Just food for thought. :^)