Folks. I posted the email I sent yesterday as a draft, for discussion. I
welcome comments, and if substantive comments are made, suggested text.
On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:48 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org
wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-baker-tsvwg-aqm-recommendation-00.txt
has been
Fred,
Comments below:
Section 2, pt 2
Deployed AQM SHOULD use ECN as well as loss, and set thresholds
to mark traffic earlier than it is lost.
- This is not clear, I agree SHOULD use ECN for ECT traffic, of course.
- I'm not sure about threshold question that sets ECN drop before ECN loss
- I
Hi,
two things (not sure whether tsv-area or tsvwg is appropriate)
following today's AQM discussion in the tsvarea meeting:
- IMHO AQM work is strongly related to the transport area
as transport protocols are affected (as Lars already mentioned)
and we also have ECN which is not working
On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Folks. I posted the email I sent yesterday as a draft, for discussion. I
welcome comments, and if substantive comments are made, suggested text.
I voiced my opinion on
On Mar 13, 2013, at 2:28 PM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk
wrote:
Fred,
Comments below:
Section 2, pt 2
Deployed AQM SHOULD use ECN as well as loss, and set thresholds
to mark traffic earlier than it is lost.
- This is not clear, I agree SHOULD use ECN for ECT traffic, of course.
- I'm not
Following on the TSVAREA meeting today, we started a new non-WG
mailing list called AQM for Active Queue Management topics:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
This is intended to be the place to discuss drafts, and proposing
a BoF or WG charter for AQM work, along with anything else
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
That depends on how FQ is implemented. The implementation I did in 1994
probably would have been high overhead. It has been minted by others,
and I believe rewritten to be a calendar queue implementation. For that,
I would not expect it was that
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Andrew McGregor wrote:
A Netgear WNDR3800 (680MHz MIPS) can handle fq_codel on two flat out
802.11n interfaces at the same time and still be very lightly loaded.
CPU is not a problem because fq_codel is a tiny fraction of the usage of
the firewall, connection tracking and
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Michael Welzl wrote:
As I just said to Mikael, I don't think I worded that one well. I'm
envisaging two thresholds, testing two stress levels. It a lower one, one
marks ECN-capable traffic and drops non-ECN-capable traffic; at the higher
one, one drops from all traffic.
