[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
Transport Working Group                                        J. Morton
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                                  P. Heist
Expires: 10 September 2020                                  9 March 2020


               Controlled Delay Approximate Fairness AQM
                draft-morton-tsvwg-codel-approx-fair-01

Abstract

   This note presents CodelAF, or Controlled Delay Approximate Fairness
   in full, as an alternative to single-queue AQM or Fair Queue
   implementations in the low-cost or high-speed network hardware
   spaces.  It builds on the seminal work in Codel [RFC8289], and guides
   multiple competing flows towards similar throughputs by differential
   congestion signalling, whilst requiring only a single FIFO queue.  It
   may also be combined with CNQ [I-D.morton-tsvwg-cheap-nasty-queueing]
   to provide a latency optimisation for sparse flows.

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
   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 10 September 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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



Morton & Heist          Expires 10 September 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   codelaf                      March 2020


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The Codel Approximate Fairness Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Extending CodelAF to Provide a Low Latency PHB  . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   For some years, the solution of choice for improving network
   performance as been the combination of Fair Queuing (FQ) with Active
   Queue Management (AQM) as demonstrated in FQ-Codel [RFC8290].
   However, concerns are legitimately raised over the difficulty of
   implementing FQ in hardware, making it a weak proposition for very
   low-cost and very high-speed network devices alike.  There is some
   evidence to suggest that implementing multiple AQM instances is not
   very difficult in hardware, but implementing multiple FIFOs can be
   prohibitive.

   CodelAF addresses this design space with a straightforward extension
   to the Codel AQM, allowing its target to be biased according to
   relative queue occupancy of a particular flow, and its signals
   applied only to that flow.  An arbitrary number of independent flows
   can then be signalled to more independently than a single AQM can,
   allowing convergence towards a fair-throughput state.

   This approach also successfully addresses the problem of allowing
   flows responding to dissimilar congestion signals to share the same
   FIFO queue without excessive bias.  In particular, it applies to Some
   Congestion Experienced [I-D.morton-tsvwg-sce] flows sharing a queue
   with conventional ECN [RFC3168] and Not-ECT flows.

   It is likely that a similar AF technique can also be applied to other
   AQMs that employ a target queue sojourn time, such as PIE and BLUE.

   Building on the basic CodelAF algorithm, this memo also shows how to
   provide a low-latency PHB through a twinned CodelAF configuration,
   requiring configuration of only a second set of AQM parameters and
   retaining approximate flow-fairness between the low-latency and best-
   effort traffic classes.




Morton & Heist          Expires 10 September 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   codelaf                      March 2020


2.  Background

   A brief summary of the basic Codel algorithm follows.  For full
   details, see [RFC8289].

   Codel is parameterised by a target setpoint, indicating the amount of
   tolerable standing queue (default 5 ms) and an initial signalling
   interval which is set to an estimate of the typical path latency
   (default 100 ms).  The principle dynamic state elements are a flag
   indicating whether Codel is in the "marking" state or not, a timer
   indicating when the next mark is due, and a counter indicating how
   many marks have been set since entering the marking state.

   Since Codel was designed at a time when ECN was not commonly used,
   the "marking" state is often described as the "dropping" state,
   including by the original authors.  Here the term "marking" state is
   used to match the increased deployment of ECN today.

   Codel enters the "marking" state when the sojourn time of a packet
   within its queue first exceeds its target setpoint.  At this time,
   the counter is initialised to 1 and the timer is set for interval/
   sqrt(counter) time in the future.  This first packet, therefore, is
   not marked, as it may be an outlier belonging to an isolated and
   temporary burst of traffic.  Only if the sojourn times of all
   subsequent packets (until the timer expires) also exceed the target
   will ECN marking (or dropping of Not-ECT packets) begin.  Marking is
   always performed at the head of the queue, where the sojourn time of
   individual packets is precisely known.

   After each mark (or drop), the counter is incremented and the timer
   advanced, again, by interval/sqrt(counter).  This causes a linear
   increase of marking frequency over time, until the queue is brought
   under control.  This is signified by the sojourn times of packets
   dropping below the target, at which time marking immediately stops
   and Codel exits the marking state.

   When Codel exits the marking state, the counter is not immediately
   reset, as further control of an aggressive flow may still be needed.
   The reference implementation pauses for some multiple of the interval
   and then resets the counter.  The COBALT variant instead decrements
   the counter and resets the timer on the same linear frequency ramp,
   run in reverse, the benefit of which can be seen in [COBALT].

   The reference CodelAF implementation is built around a combination of
   COBALT with CNQ [I-D.morton-tsvwg-cheap-nasty-queueing], to which
   only small code changes were required.





Morton & Heist          Expires 10 September 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   codelaf                      March 2020


3.  The Codel Approximate Fairness Algorithm

   In CodelAF, a separate instance of the Codel state variables (marking
   flag, timer, and counter) are kept for each flow.  In addition, an
   account of the instantaneous queue occupancy of each flow is
   maintained, as well as the total queue occupancy, and the number of
   "active flows" which have traffic in the queue.

   Flows may be distinguished by whichever means is convenient, for
   example a hash function over the traditional 5-tuple of protocol
   number, source/destination addresses and port numbers.  Some
   deployments may prefer to use a smaller set of packet header
   information, or to distinguish based on subscriber ID metadata.  The
   result in any case is an index into a flow table containing the queue
   occupancy data and AQM state mentioned above.

   The Codel parameters (interval, target) are common to all flows.
   However, when evaluating the AQM state for a packet, the target
   parameter is locally adjusted based on the actual queue occupancy by
   that packet's flow, compared to the fair-share queue occupancy based
   on dividing the total occupancy between all active flows.  Hence a
   sparser flow, with lower than average occupancy, will receive more
   leniency from the AQM.

   The basic Codel criterion:

   if(sojourn > target):
           enter_dropping_state;

   becomes:

   if(sojourn * flow occupancy * active flows > target * total occupancy):
           enter_dropping_state;

   This is sufficient to guide flows that are responsive to AQM signals
   towards throughput fairness.

4.  Extending CodelAF to Provide a Low Latency PHB

   The Internet is a highly heterogeneous environment, with path lengths
   as short as single-digit milliseconds on some paths, and approaching
   a full second on others.  An AQM is thus set for a reasonable
   compromise corresponding to a "typical" path length; in the case of
   Codel and CodelAF, this is 100ms RTT, which works well on
   transcontinental and inter-continental paths, and also has acceptable
   behaviour on shorter paths for many applications.  However, better
   control of latency may be desired for traffic known to be on such a
   short path, eg. between an end-user and a Content Distribution



Morton & Heist          Expires 10 September 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   codelaf                      March 2020


   Network (CDN) or gaming service local to that end-user.  This
   requires that a second queue and AQM is selectable by some
   classifier, such as a Diffserv codepoint (DSCP)
   [RFC2475][RFC7657][RFC8100], and tuned for the shorter path length.

   A perennial concern with Diffserv deployment is ensuring that traffic
   originators are not incentivised to mis-mark their traffic by, for
   example, obtaining an unreasonable throughput increase at the expense
   of traffic legitimately marked one way or the other.  The
   configuration described here addresses this concern by ensuring that
   throughput is controlled in a flow-fair manner between the classes,
   as well as within them.  Hence there is no unfair throughput benefit
   from selecting the low-latency class, while the more severe AQM
   action will encourage long-path flows to select the more appropriate
   default class.  Hence marking incentives are properly aligned with
   the intent of the PHB.

   Two complete CodelAF instances are provided, the ensemble being
   referred to as Twin-CodelAF.  Packets are simply enqueued into one of
   the two instances, depending on whether the classifier matches the
   configured value(s) or not.  Admission control of any kind is not
   necessary.  The "low latency" instance is configured for the expected
   path RTT of suitably marked traffic, while the "default" instance
   remains configured for a general Internet path RTT.

   Because CodelAF keeps track of the number of active flows, it is then
   straightforward to perform Weighted Round Robin (WRR) between the two
   instances on dequeue, with the weight of each instance corresponding
   to the number of active flows in each.  This is the mechanism which
   enforces flow-fairness between the classes.

   if(only one queue contains packets):
           deliver from that queue;
   else
           deliver from queue with lowest deficit;

   deficit of delivered queue += active flows of other queue;
   deficit of both queues -= min(deficits);

5.  Security Considerations

   No particular security concerns are anticipated.

6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations.

7.  Informative References



Morton & Heist          Expires 10 September 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   codelaf                      March 2020


   [RFC8100]  Geib, R., Ed. and D. Black, "Diffserv-Interconnection
              Classes and Practice", RFC 8100, DOI 10.17487/RFC8100,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8100>.

   [I-D.morton-tsvwg-cheap-nasty-queueing]
              Morton, J. and P. Heist, "Cheap Nasty Queueing", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-morton-tsvwg-cheap-nasty-
              queueing-01, 4 November 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-tsvwg-cheap-
              nasty-queueing-01>.

   [RFC8290]  Hoeiland-Joergensen, T., McKenney, P., Taht, D., Gettys,
              J., and E. Dumazet, "The Flow Queue CoDel Packet Scheduler
              and Active Queue Management Algorithm", RFC 8290,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8290, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8290>.

   [RFC7657]  Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
              (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.

   [COBALT]   Palmei, J., Gupta, S., Imputato, P., Morton, J.,
              Tahiliani, M.P., Avallone, S., and D. Taht, "Design and
              Evaluation of COBALT Queue Discipline", September 2019,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8847054>.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC8289]  Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., Ed., and J.
              Iyengar, Ed., "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management",
              RFC 8289, DOI 10.17487/RFC8289, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8289>.

   [I-D.morton-tsvwg-sce]
              Morton, J. and R. Grimes, "The Some Congestion Experienced
              ECN Codepoint", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              morton-tsvwg-sce-01, 4 November 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-tsvwg-sce-01>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.




Morton & Heist          Expires 10 September 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   codelaf                      March 2020


Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan Morton
   Kokkonranta 21
   FI-31520 Pitkajarvi
   Finland

   Phone: +358 44 927 2377
   Email: chromatix99@gmail.com


   Peter G. Heist
   Redacted
   463 11 Liberec 30
   Czech Republic

   Email: pete@heistp.net


































Morton & Heist          Expires 10 September 2020               [Page 7]