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
? Eghhh!
On Tue, 6/24/14, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [aqm] New Version Notification for
draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation-00.txt
To: Scheffenegger, Richard r...@netapp.com
Cc: aqm@ietf.org aqm@ietf.org, grenville armitage
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Daniel Havey dha...@yahoo.com wrote:
So IMHO it really doesn't matter except in the weird corner case where a a
running flow has already bloated the queue and then we switch on the AQM.
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
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
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
)
Sent: Freitag, 20. Juni 2014 17:52
To: grenville armitage
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] New Version Notification for draft-baker-aqm-sfq-
implementation-00.txt
On Jun 19, 2014, at 8:12 PM, grenville armitage garmit...@swin.edu.au
wrote:
Fred,
Just read it -- clear, easy
