Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

[Francini, Andrea (Nokia - US/Murray Hill)]

The paper we published at HPSR 2015 
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7483103/ ) indeed emphasizes the 
application of GSP to high-speed links, where the simplicity of the scheme is 
most beneficial.

If “conjunction with flow isolation” means combination of the algorithm with a 
flow queueing arrangement, there is logically no restriction in realizing it. 
We tested FQ-GSP on ns2, getting similar results as with other FQ-AQM schemes 
(never worse, never overwhelmingly better in the scenarios we looked at). Since 
the algorithmic simplicity is not as critical in lower-speed links, we thought 
there was little value in trying to add one more scheme to an already crowded 
space.

Also (and this is just my opinion), I don’t think that combining FQ and AQM is 
a good idea, because it imposes a single policy on all flows despite the 
variety of their needs. I like a plain FQ with large buffer much better, 
because it guarantees bandwidth fairness and makes every application solely 
responsible for the queuing delay it gets.
Andrea


From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:chromati...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Francini, Andrea (Nokia - US/Murray Hill) 
<andrea.franc...@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: Roland Bless <roland.bl...@kit.edu>; Wesley Eddy <w...@mti-systems.com>; 
aqm@ietf.org; Lautenschlaeger, Wolfram (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) 
<wolfram.lautenschlae...@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?


Reading the spec, it looks very much as though it's tuned for implementation in 
relatively simple, high-speed nodes.  It doesn't look at all like it would work 
in conjunction with flow isolation, which is inherently a much more effective 
idea when feasible to deploy - which it should be at speeds up to at least 
1Gbps.

However, I could see some use for GSP when combined with host isolation, at 
nodes aggregating a large number of subcriber hosts' traffic and thus requiring 
very high aggregate throughput.  Host isolation doesn't require as many 
resources as full flow isolation, and is typically implemented anyway as part 
of per-subscriber provisioning.

If tests are carried out, that might be the best scenario to start with.

- Jonathan Morton
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

[Jonathan Morton]

Reading the spec, it looks very much as though it's tuned for
implementation in relatively simple, high-speed nodes.  It doesn't look at
all like it would work in conjunction with flow isolation, which is
inherently a much more effective idea when feasible to deploy - which it
should be at speeds up to at least 1Gbps.

However, I could see some use for GSP when combined with host isolation, at
nodes aggregating a large number of subcriber hosts' traffic and thus
requiring very high aggregate throughput.  Host isolation doesn't require
as many resources as full flow isolation, and is typically implemented
anyway as part of per-subscriber provisioning.

If tests are carried out, that might be the best scenario to start with.

- Jonathan Morton
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

[Francini, Andrea (Nokia - US/Murray Hill)]

I know Wolfram is on vacation until January 8. I am sure he will provide input 
when he comes back.

I believe the interest of the working group in GSP faded because there was not 
a public implementation available for testing. If the GSP version mentioned by 
Roland can be made public, it is definitely worth testing it.

Regards,

Andrea

-Original Message-
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bless, Roland (TM)
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:26 AM
To: Wesley Eddy <w...@mti-systems.com>; aqm@ietf.org; Lautenschlaeger, Wolfram 
(Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) <wolfram.lautenschlae...@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

Hi Wesley,

Am 14.12.2017 um 22:59 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
> I mentioned GSP as a possible work item, back when we were discussing
> rechartering, but apparently it was not compelling to the group at that
> time.
> 
> When we did the AQM algorithm adoption call ~2014, GSP appeared to be
> basically viable technically, but there wasn't evidence that multiple
> parties were interested in working with it enough to go forward (not
> just working the document, but implementing, simulating, testing,
> analyzing, deploying, etc).   There is a thread in the archives with
> subject "[aqm] adoption call: algorithm drafts".

Thanks for the pointer! At that point in time there was not enough
experience with it.

> I haven't noticed a change in activity around GSP since then, but
> apologize if I'm just ignorant of it!

That's right, maybe Wolfram was busy with other stuff.
Our group, however, worked with it at speeds of 1 Gbit/s
and also 10 Gbit/s and we can confirm that its performance is comparable
to - and w.r.t. loss desynchronization - even better than CoDel or PIE
in many of our tested scenarios. Since it's heading for just an
experimental status, the bar shouldn't be too high to get this finished.

Regards,
 Roland

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

[Bless, Roland (TM)]

Hi Wesley,

Am 14.12.2017 um 22:59 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
> I mentioned GSP as a possible work item, back when we were discussing
> rechartering, but apparently it was not compelling to the group at that
> time.
> 
> When we did the AQM algorithm adoption call ~2014, GSP appeared to be
> basically viable technically, but there wasn't evidence that multiple
> parties were interested in working with it enough to go forward (not
> just working the document, but implementing, simulating, testing,
> analyzing, deploying, etc).   There is a thread in the archives with
> subject "[aqm] adoption call: algorithm drafts".

Thanks for the pointer! At that point in time there was not enough
experience with it.

> I haven't noticed a change in activity around GSP since then, but
> apologize if I'm just ignorant of it!

That's right, maybe Wolfram was busy with other stuff.
Our group, however, worked with it at speeds of 1 Gbit/s
and also 10 Gbit/s and we can confirm that its performance is comparable
to - and w.r.t. loss desynchronization - even better than CoDel or PIE
in many of our tested scenarios. Since it's heading for just an
experimental status, the bar shouldn't be too high to get this finished.

Regards,
 Roland

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

[Michael Welzl]

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Wesley Eddy  wrote:
> 
> On 12/14/2017 4:35 PM, Roland Bless wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> I was wondering what happened to the GSP AQM proposal
>> (draft-lauten-aqm-gsp see
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lauten-aqm-gsp).
>> Discussion seems to have ended after IETF 93 and we probably
>> missed the point of discussing WG adoption.
>> IMHO this AQM should also be documented as RFC. It performs extremely
>> well in some settings (better than CoDel or PIE) and its implementation
>> complexity is also lower. Wolfram, are you interested in finishing this?
>> Should we continue in tsvwg?
>> 
> 
> I mentioned GSP as a possible work item, back when we were discussing 
> rechartering, but apparently it was not compelling to the group at that time.
> 
> When we did the AQM algorithm adoption call ~2014, GSP appeared to be 
> basically viable technically, but there wasn't evidence that multiple parties 
> were interested in working with it enough to go forward (not just working the 
> document, but implementing, simulating, testing, analyzing, deploying, etc).  
>  There is a thread in the archives with subject "[aqm] adoption call: 
> algorithm drafts”.

I agree, I also remember lack of activity / interest, but I would like to 
encourage people to at least take a look at this.
In my opinion, it was an extremely interesting proposal, and I felt I learned 
something new from listening to Wolfram  (I had become conditioned to believe 
that removing synchronization requires randomness).

Cheers,
Michael

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

[Wesley Eddy]

On 12/14/2017 4:35 PM, Roland Bless wrote:

Hi folks,

I was wondering what happened to the GSP AQM proposal
(draft-lauten-aqm-gsp see
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lauten-aqm-gsp).
Discussion seems to have ended after IETF 93 and we probably
missed the point of discussing WG adoption.
IMHO this AQM should also be documented as RFC. It performs extremely
well in some settings (better than CoDel or PIE) and its implementation
complexity is also lower. Wolfram, are you interested in finishing this?
Should we continue in tsvwg?



I mentioned GSP as a possible work item, back when we were discussing 
rechartering, but apparently it was not compelling to the group at that 
time.


When we did the AQM algorithm adoption call ~2014, GSP appeared to be 
basically viable technically, but there wasn't evidence that multiple 
parties were interested in working with it enough to go forward (not 
just working the document, but implementing, simulating, testing, 
analyzing, deploying, etc).   There is a thread in the archives with 
subject "[aqm] adoption call: algorithm drafts".


I haven't noticed a change in activity around GSP since then, but 
apologize if I'm just ignorant of it!



___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

[aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

[Roland Bless]

Hi folks,

I was wondering what happened to the GSP AQM proposal
(draft-lauten-aqm-gsp see
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lauten-aqm-gsp).
Discussion seems to have ended after IETF 93 and we probably
missed the point of discussing WG adoption.
IMHO this AQM should also be documented as RFC. It performs extremely
well in some settings (better than CoDel or PIE) and its implementation
complexity is also lower. Wolfram, are you interested in finishing this?
Should we continue in tsvwg?

Regards,
 Roland

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm