On 2/28/2013 2:55 PM, Matt Mathis wrote: > Two of the tests in my model based metrics draft (for IPPM) are for > AQM (like) tests. One we have pretty good theory for (preventing > standing queues in congestion avoidance) and the other we don't > (exiting from slowstart at a reasonable window). > > See: draft-mathis-ippm-model-based-metrics-01.txt > > My intent is that these tests will become part of a future IPPM > standard on what a network must do in order to support modern > applications at specific performance levels. Although the draft > will not specify AQM algorithms at all, it will forbid some non-AQM > behaviors such as unreasonable standing queues. To the extent that > it gets traction as a standard, it will strongly encourage deployment, > even if we are not totally convinced that our current AQM algorithms > are 100% correct.
I like the idea. > However, It is not clear that we need to standardize AQM - It strikes > me as one area where we can permit pretty much unfettered diversity in > the operational Internet as long as it meets a pretty low "it seems > to work" bar. Fully agreed! Publishing specs is only useful to get some known-good algorithm(s) that folks can safely implement without thinking too hard, and also to burn off any possible ambiguities in the descriptions of the algorithms, catch any corner cases, etc. > For this reason it is important to deploy your favorite algorithm(s) > ASAP, because they are all infinitely better than none, and future > improvements will be relatively minor by comparison. > Agreed, with the caveat that not *all* conceivable algorithms are good :). One of the things I think might be useful rather than (or in addition to) specifying algorithms, is specifying test setups or metrics that allow any algorithm to be checked for sanity, as a black box. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel