From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ve0-x229.google.com (mail-ve0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::229]) (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 1A273200619 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c14so4302511vea.28 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:04:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PSztR23yiQPOn2FkiDsJWe+/LRgyUADoKhE6kH11gBg=; b=wOT4OlmK2C9Ai1rQs01b4NGlklNZyK86B0G3c97nE5+dG+08f0EeeUFOhFEb9GfEp9 zi7tzMcgV8zheFa5ZJqI89kJeqwqvsEKNzQDaWmaxSWZ++DZEEJMkpJCVG22aPAw24m2 ddCuY6C+fCctu7mCdfPZXR2xxovbgJrlBLDn4D5jlrgeUpnIrfYQ3KmcAMX8vOziU0sl +cS840q9qq4H0TuvVTpHJ3D/mA511EOlWVXzQG8vV1fbcHixdXcHYjVYGiADzFQ6RIZ4 WgrQSxx37OkF0Mw9i7PcWICFF4Bxc4Gsa9d5MSGv5u/if+lKC+idrCEtqCAaV9/yHDHn Q/Ng== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.237.138 with SMTP id ko10mr80216vcb.44.1383019499577; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.165.204 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:04:59 -0400 Message-ID: From: Anirudh Sivaraman To: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Hari Balakrishnan , Suvinay Subramanian , Keith Winstein Subject: [Codel] Work on absence of a universal queue management / scheduling scheme 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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:05:01 -0000 Hello, I would be grateful for the list's feedback re: our new paper that attempts to show that there is no universal AQM or scheduling scheme, and proposes extending SDN to the data plane to allow a switch to implement different scheduling and queue management algorithms, even after being installed. The paper, along with instructions to reproduce its results, is available here: http://web.mit.edu/anirudh/www/sdn-data-plane.html We compared three queue-management schemes on a bottleneck gateway in simulation: CoDel running on a single queue (as described in "man tc-codel"), CoDel with per-flow queues (fq_codel, as described in "man tc-fq_codel"), and per-flow queueing with long DropTail queues. It turns out that depending on the objectives desired by the traffic running across the gateway, any one of these schemes can be better than any other -- i.e. A>B>C>A and A>C>B>A. In other words, we don't think there is likely to be a 'best' AQM scheme Our proposal to address the absence of a universal in-network configuration is a switch data plane that's flexible enough to implement new scheduling and queue management schemes. To be clear, this work is merely a position paper at this point, and needs a lot more thought before such a design is feasible at line rates on switches with an aggregate capacity reaching 1 Terabit/sec. We are presenting this next month at HotNets, so we are grateful for any feedback from the list. Anirudh