[Bloat] DETNET

[Ken Birman]

You can do that with packet tags and filtering

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 18, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Matthias Tafelmeier <matthias.tafelmeier at gmx.net<mailto:matthias.tafelmeier at gmx.net>> wrote:

On 11/15/2017 08:31 PM, Dave Taht wrote:

    However, like you, I just sigh when I see the behemoth detnet is building.

Does it? Well, so far the circumference seems justififiable for what they want
to achieve, at least according to what I can tell from these rather still
abstract concepts.

            The sort of industrial control applications that detnet is targeting
        require far lower queuing delay and jitter than fq_CoDel can give. They
        have thrown around numbers like 250us jitter and 1E-9 to 1E-12 packet
        loss probability.

    Nonetheless, it's important to have a debate about where to go to next.
    Personally I don't think fq_CoDel alone has legs to get (that) much better.


The place where bob and I always disconnect is that I care about
interflow latencies generally more than queuing latencies and prefer to
have strong incentives for non-queue building flows in the first
place. This results in solid latencies of 1/flows at your bandwidth. At
100Mbit, a single 1500 byte packet takes 130us to deliver, gbit, 13us,
10Gbit, 1.3us.

A not necessarily informed enough question to that: couldn't this marking based virtual queueuing get extended to a per flow mechanism if the marking loop was implemented in an efficient way?

--
Besten Gruß

Matthias Tafelmeier



<0x8ADF343B.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20171118/84bf9f22/attachment-0001.html>