On 15 Mar 2019, at 8:34, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr> writes:
PIE [...] lends itself better for implementation in existing
hardware,
or hardware with small modification.
Could one of you please explain why?
With the caveat that I have never worked with any of this hardware,
this
is my understanding:
Basically, you can re-use the drop mechanism from RED and use the PIE
algorithm as a (better) way to control the setpoints. This makes it
possible to retrofit it in existing hardware. In fact I believe you
can
implement PIE entirely in the (software) control plane on (a lot of)
gear that already knows how to do RED.
Another factor, which as I recall was perhaps the strongest of the
original motivations for PIE, is that PIE does nearly all its work on
enqueue, whereas CoDel does most of its work on dequeue. In many
hardware interfaces, especially at a head end where there are lots of
queues and a simple hardware FIFO feeding the link, it turns out to be
difficult/expensive to insert the computations CoDel does on each
dequeue operation.
-Toke
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
DaveO
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
