Forwarded comments from AQM. Begin forwarded message:
> From: David Collier-Brown <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [aqm] draft-ksubram-lmap-router-buffer-sizes > Date: October 31, 2014 at 11:03:39 AM PDT > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > It's OK, we just need to write it up as informational material and cite it a > lot. Maybe as an appendix to a congestion-related rfc, maybe as a little > bitty one on it's own. > > Having said that, I guess I've just volunteered to write it. > > Therefor: If someone says where it should go, so people will find it when > looking for the expected behaviour, I'll compose a draft and help make it fit. > > --dave > > On 10/31/2014 10:58 AM, Daniel Havey wrote: >> Yeah, I have encountered this type of problem in many forms. It seems that >> there are fundamental misunderstandings of the problem. This seems >> prevalent in expert networking communities from people who have the >> knowledge, but, perhaps have not thought the problem through thoroughly. >> >> I guess we are just working at cross-purposes with other communities. >> Perhaps there is no cure for this problem and maybe we just have to accept >> and embrace it. >> >> >> ...Daniel >> >> On Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:00 PM, David Collier-Brown >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yup: author makes a classic, and I fear common, wrong assumption about >> tradeoffs in queuing systems. >> >> Latency is minimized throughout the operating range if a queue is not >> allowed to form. TCP consciously sees a queue as congestion and avoids >> having it. >> >> Bufferboat causes queuing, and degrades both (low) latency and >> throughput, trying to drive the link toward congestive collapse. >> The worst of all possible worlds! >> >> In this case it also tries to drive Dave Taht's circulation system >> into collapse, which is doubly ungood. >> >> --dave >> >> >> >> On 10/30/2014 09:49 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> I didn't get past the first sentence. "The question boils down to quantify >> buffer sizes and yet achieve 100% >> utilization on links with maximum throughput at a feasible cost. " My goal >> has always been to have minimal induced latency and reasonable >> utilization, and also to keep my blood pressure low. Reading further >> strikes me as damaging to both goals. On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Fred >> Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Folks from AQM may be interested to comment on >>> draft-ksubram-lmap-router-buffer-sizes on the lmap list. >>> _______________________________________________ >> aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm >> >> > > > -- > David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify > System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest > [email protected] | -- Mark Twain > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
