From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93E221F352;
	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100])
	by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id
	t5C1nG2G025704; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:49:16 -0700
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm
To: Daniel Havey <dhavey@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO1c0ARWWwu8yu7tEuBD+Lh2qu5b4Ts5qanaNBSyf9hnu1ptQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506111845300.16013@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <CAA93jw4TSXDEe8Y0VCRQvS5xKU6sM4t5or962iv079-FcCEMNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF99AA07-D411-48CE-B14F-EE88B95A683A@gmx.de>
	<CAO1c0ARWWwu8yu7tEuBD+Lh2qu5b4Ts5qanaNBSyf9hnu1ptQw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
	<cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Cake] active sensing queue management
X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
	<cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:49:53 -0000

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