> On Mar 2, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Alan Jenkins
> wrote:
>
> Google avoid the bursts you describe, using pacing.
I have been an advocate of pacing during the first transmission burst
(including after an idle period) for quite some time, and also for
> On Feb 27, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Dave Täht wrote:
>
> https://reproducingnetworkresearch.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/cs244-14-confused-timid-and-unstable-picking-a-video-streaming-rate-is-hard/
>
>> o the results are very poor with a particular popular AQM
>
> Define "very poor".
On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> I do also (personally) think that if there's a desire to go standards-track
> (rather than just experimental) with AQM algorithms, that having a fairly
> explicit evaluation of the algorithms with regard to the guidelines
FYI. I posted -04 in response to the GEN-ART review, and a nit was pointed out.
This fixes a reference.
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From:
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-05.txt
> Date: November 2, 2015 at 4:07:33 PM GMT+9
>
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>
> Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-03: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC
l to the point of the draft (or it would have
> been
> a Discuss), but I still would strongly prefer accuracy.
I can include a link to
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/node643.html#Brow88:Calendar
<http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/node643.html#Brow88:Calendar> if that helps.
> Regar
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 11:34 AM, David Lang wrote:
>
>> If ack reductions are so very valuable, what's the chance of doing that on
>> an end to end basis instead of in the network?
>
> a little less than the chance of shutting off IPv4 :-)
Hey, we can dream, can't we? :-)
>
I'm not sure why this discussion is happening on aqm@ instead of tcpm@... I
have added cpm to the cc line, and would recommend that anyone responding to
this thread do the same and remove aqm@.
On Oct 7, 2015, at 2:13 PM, David Lang wrote:
> So things that reduce the flow of
On Jul 3, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
yep! Sorry! What is the current limit on number of queues, however?
At what point do we declare this a rathole and return to the algorithm?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On Jul 3, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
There are also weighted FQ systems (like qfq+ + pie or codel) under
development.
Actually, A WFQ system has been in Cisco product for 20 years, and I wrote one
at a different company four years earlier. having FQ systems be
On Jul 2, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
This is, as far as I can tell from your explanation, different than what
fq_pie does.
OK, apologies for the misinformation.
In any event, the matter is not fundamental to fair queuing.
signature.asc
Description:
On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:56 AM, Polina Goltsman uu...@student.kit.edu wrote:
Hello all,
If I understood the code correctly, in fq_pie there is a single PIE instance
that controls all fq queues. In contrast in fq_codel there is a separate
instance of codel for each queue. Is this the case?
On Jun 5, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Very cool. Does this mean that Cisco are not planning on enforcing any IP
rights over PIE?
I think Cisco stands by its IPR statement on the topic.
Simon
On 6/4/2015 3:06 PM, Hironori Okano -X (hokano - AAP3 INC at
On May 24, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Hi Roland,
My recent attention to DSCP has come from looking at what correct mappings to
802.1D (now 802.1Q) would be. I have also run across a couple of comments
that legacy IP Precedence maps CS1 - higher priority
On May 18, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Shortly, our investigation confirms the negative interference: while AQM
fixes the bufferbloat, it destroys the relative priority among Cc protocols.
I think I would phrase that a little differently.
The concept of
On May 12, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to get agreement
on a global low priority DSCP?
I’d suggest
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4594
4594 Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes. J.
On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:42 AM, Bob Briscoe bob.bris...@bt.com wrote:
I volunteered to do a thorough review of the PIE draft, which I'm just
writing up. One of the problems is that it says 'Proposed Standard' at the
top, but it's written in an informational style. There is no normative
I similarly support the document. One comment, for Mikael.
On Apr 24, 2015, at 2:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Wesley Eddy wrote:
To keep moving forward with the set of documents, we'd like to start
a Working Group Last Call on:
Bob/Gorry:
Didn’t we have essentially the same comment a week or two ago? What was our
resolution?
I think it was a minor rewording that included a little more than
s/threshold/parameters/, and which I worried was heading in the direction of a
much bigger question - what parameters.
Fred
I'd suggest looking at netperf. It doesn't measure the queue directly; it
measures the latency that queue occupancy induces. However, at least in
commercial equipment, this thing we call the queue may not be all in the same
place...
From: aqm
in line.
Regards,
Elwyn
On 05/01/15 20:32, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jan 5, 2015, at 1:13 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Fred, I've applied the minor edits.
I have questions to you on the comments blow (see GF:) before I
proceed.
Gorry
Adding Elwyn, as the discussion of his
the requirements of being self-configuring/tuning, at the
same time as it passes along others as PS or whatever.
-Shahid.
-Original Message-
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:06 AM
To: John Leslie
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
shahid.akh...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Hi Wes,
Can you share the update/text that John Leslie had suggested which Fred
mentions in his comment.
Thanks,
-Shahid.
I have attached the text John sent yesterday. It is derived from
On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Wesley Eddy w...@mti-systems.com wrote:
John Leslie noticed that some of the things Bob Briscoe had
mentioned stem from trying to work from RFC 2309 as the starting
point. We have been planning
On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Scheffenegger, Richard r...@netapp.com wrote:
as individual
Hi Fred,
thank you for writing this down; one aspect that gets referred to, but not
made completely explicit in sections 3.2 and 3.3 is the interaction of the
AQM / Queue signals with the
On Jun 24, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Daniel Havey dha...@yahoo.com wrote:
There may be scenarios where the interaction of the interval, the RTT and the
bandwidth cause this to happen recurringly constantly underflowing the
bandwidth.
To be honest, the real concern is very long delay paths, and it
I’d be interested in comments on this.
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation-00.txt
Date: June 13, 2014 at 2:52:07 PM PDT
To: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com, Rong Pan ro...@cisco.com, Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com, Rong Pan
On Apr 29, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Dave Taht wrote:
pretty wonderful experiment and video http://livingwithlag.com/
Just so that everybody realises that this is an advertisement.
Also, what access method has 300 ms access
Makes sense to me. I do have one question. Per charter, in December we are
supposed to Submit first algorithm specification to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard”. Would this be a change of direction for the charter?
Note that I’m not pushing a given algorithm, nor am I convinced that
No, you're not blowing smoke. I'm not sure I would compare the behavior to
PMTUD, as in that the endpoint is given a magic number and manages to it, where
in this case, it is given the results of its behavior, and it manages to
improve that.
But this is what I have rambled on about in threads
On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Anoop Ghanwani an...@alumni.duke.edu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Naeem Khademi naeem.khad...@gmail.com
wrote:
Agreed only in general terms -- but what would be considered as packet
burst and how would it be defined? This will probably have a
On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
With CoDel, the key issue is the sqrt. As the algorithm is described, it
happens in the data path - upon interval expiration, a packet is dropped, and
a new interval is calculated in inverse proportion to the square root
On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
shahid.akh...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
One of the the objectives of newer AQMs being defined here should be to
minimize tuning, but we should recognize that likely tuning or some
configuration cannot be eliminated altogether.
FB:
On Nov 5, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Scheffenegger, Richard r...@netapp.com wrote:
As the mechanism update presentations took quite a bit longer than we had
expected - and we appreciate the discussion these presentations have sparked
- we agreed with Fred to have his presentation as the first agenda
On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Bob Briscoe bob.bris...@bt.com wrote:
Folks,
Pls respond if you support this being adopted as a work-group item in the
IETF transport services w-g (tsvwg). The WG chairs need visibility of
interest.
And don't respond if we don't support it? :-)
I have a very
35 matches
Mail list logo