R: R: [e2e] [Fwd: RED-->ECN]

[Saverio Mascolo]

I have no reasons to believe that results reported in the paper below are
not correct.
Robust tuning of RED parameter is of course a great issue.
Regarding Random Early Discard my question is: since the goal is to produce
an early congestion indication through early dropping, why should we relate
dropping to average queue instead of instantaneous queue?
Average introduces delay and this is against the goal of having early
congestion indication.

Saverio Mascolo, Ph.D

Associate Professor
Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica
Politecnico di Bari
Via Orabona 4
70125 Italy
email: mascolo at poliba.it
tel. +39 080 5963621
fax. +39 080 5963410
http://www-dee.poliba.it/dee-web/Personale/mascolo.html

> Saverio Mascolo wrote:
> >
> > What Hollot says is right. Averaging the queue makes much more difficult
to
> > control the queue level. In control terms is like to add another pole in
the
> > feedback loop.
> > An interesting paper is also "Reasons not to deploy RED" by J. Bolot et.
al.
> > ( at http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/337634.html).
> > This paper experiments average vs. instantaneous queue RED dropping.
> >
> ...
>
> There are a lot of interesting things to look at in RED-type work and
> one of them is to closely examine the quality of the experiments
> that are done and cited in papers. Unless the above cited paper has
> changed since someone at Cisco asked me to look at it, all I can
> say is if your network looks like that of their experiments (set up,
> RTTs, traffic mix), then perhaps the results apply. There is a body
> of measurement work that shows that most networks look rather different
> from this. I'm personally interested in results that show some
> robustness,
> but this may not be currently fashionable.
>
> Kathie Nichols
>