DualQ Coupled AQMs for Low Latency, Low Loss and Scalable Throughput (L4S)
draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-04

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04

Transport Area working group (tsvwg)                      K. De Schepper
Internet-Draft                                           Nokia Bell Labs
Intended status: Experimental                            B. Briscoe, Ed.
Expires: September 6, 2018                                     CableLabs
                                                           O. Bondarenko
                                                     Simula Research Lab
                                                                I. Tsang
                                                                   Nokia
                                                           March 5, 2018

  DualQ Coupled AQMs for Low Latency, Low Loss and Scalable Throughput
                                 (L4S)
                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-04

Abstract

   Data Centre TCP (DCTCP) was designed to provide predictably low
   queuing latency, near-zero loss, and throughput scalability using
   explicit congestion notification (ECN) and an extremely simple
   marking behaviour on switches.  However, DCTCP does not co-exist with
   existing TCP traffic---DCTCP is so aggressive that existing TCP
   algorithms approach starvation.  So, until now, DCTCP could only be
   deployed where a clean-slate environment could be arranged, such as
   in private data centres.  This specification defines `DualQ Coupled
   Active Queue Management (AQM)' to allow scalable congestion controls
   like DCTCP to safely co-exist with classic Internet traffic.  The
   Coupled AQM ensures that a flow runs at about the same rate whether
   it uses DCTCP or TCP Reno/Cubic, but without inspecting transport
   layer flow identifiers.  When tested in a residential broadband
   setting, DCTCP achieved sub-millisecond average queuing delay and
   zero congestion loss under a wide range of mixes of DCTCP and
   `Classic' broadband Internet traffic, without compromising the
   performance of the Classic traffic.  The solution also reduces
   network complexity and eliminates network configuration.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

De Schepper, et al.     Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             DualQ Coupled AQMs                 March 2018

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Problem and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  DualQ Coupled AQM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.  Coupled AQM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Dual Queue  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Traffic Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  Overall DualQ Coupled AQM Structure . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.5.  Normative Requirements for a DualQ Coupled AQM  . . . . .  11
       2.5.1.  Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.5.2.  Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  Overload Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.1.1.  Avoiding Classic Starvation: Sacrifice L4S Throughput
               or Delay? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.1.2.  Congestion Signal Saturation: Introduce L4S Drop or
               Delay?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15