From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from o50314941.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net (o50314941.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net [50.31.49.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0B1721F1C4 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:36:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpapi; bh=6SMs9Ed7G/wdpE5Tsb+3xaMdZ0M=; b=wVwPTaeB0j3SRxy9vf f8IBHAIC4k+MyfNr58jb45NtRr9Kp72mLQ7Zn+aJuCipZUhKRXrzgafXaO/T6WPe LpIXpQdv/8/YSAZqybSVlut57ArfrNNK1d+wIyY5ikBmSy8t8WaSbKf9GYIU1ySU MKSeTa6OSwmIcWc1XdfH5amwg= Received: by filter-295.sjc1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter-295.16359.54F250E3E 2015-02-28 23:36:05.489177975 +0000 UTC Received: from [192.168.168.39] (unknown [10.42.80.56]) by ismtpd-073 (SG) with ESMTP id 14bd28bff68.6303.ddb63 Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:36:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54F250E4.8090301@tomh.org> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:36:04 -0800 From: Tom Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Taht , divya singla References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SG-EID: QT0ZkWixxCEnQZtlp9OxJLRytEXsiol0qc68EcceXHxrg8riZsyrNsWoMqTaMy/2cu7Mzy4Ux21YAk NUn6ZhqQ3LeJxcthBXDb7aYTXrpSBuF3nvn30QzyaxQT98yPMIxohBMlUEBiQBqOLlhkqD8UeirR4V hI+sr8/xYYzp4J0= Cc: "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Codel] fq_Codel vs Sfq_Codel X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:36:36 -0000 On 02/28/2015 09:58 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > sfq_codel in ns2 is derived more from SFQ than DRR, and there are > several substantial differences, although sfq_codel can be almost, > but not quite, configured to act the same as the dual DRR version that > is in the actual, shipping, fq_codel. The version of DRR fq_codel uses > is more similar to "DRR+" and "DRR++", but is uniquely it's own. > > You have to use sfq_codel VERY carefully in the ns2 version, as the > ability to correctly generate a five tuple hash is not there. > Correctly generating a 5 tuple is almost, but not quite, in the ns3 > version, last I looked, and that ns3 version is MUCH closer to the > actual fq_codel version deployed in the field, but still not quite the > same thing. I have kind of lost track as to the right ns2 and ns3 > versions to start from, also. Tom? Dave and all, The status of ns-2 and ns-3 support is as follows. In ns-2, some new models (CoDel, SFQCoDel, CoDel-DT, and PIE) contributed by Kathleen Nichols, CableLabs, and Cisco will be part of the ns-2.36 release, which is in preparation. An initial release candidate was posted here: http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/index.php/Roadmap#Release_candidates_for_testing and the code in the CVS tree is consistent with this. (Preview) documentation on the new models is available here: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/dist/release/rc1/doc/node69.html and here: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/dist/release/rc1/doc/node89.html When will 2.36 be released? I am working through a long list of issues getting the debug build to work on clang-based systems, and when those are resolved (in the next few weeks?) I'll release 2.36. The release candidate above is pretty close to what will be the final bits. In ns-3, basic CoDel was added in n-3.21. Dave and Andrew McGregor contributed some models for FQ- and SFQ-CoDel a while back; links to this code can be found on our wiki Current Development page. Inclusion of these is blocked by some stack refactoring that Dave pointed to in a subsequent post, to insert a priority queue sublayer for these queues. I'm working towards the goal of making these available by ns-3.23 (May), but I aimed for ns-3.22 and missed, so I can't promise that these will be done by May; we'll see. If anyone wants to help test these new simulation models and get them into shape for release, please contact me. - Tom