Evaluation of ARED, CoDel and PIE

In this paper we compare the three Active Queue Management (AQMs) Adaptive Random Early Detection (ARED), Controlled Delay (CoDel) and Proportional Integral controller Enhanced (PIE) in static as well as dynamic scenarios. We find significant issues when these algorithms are used for big Round Trip Times (RTTs) as well as a significant utilization decrease when used for high bandwidth links. When used for low and medium sized links, CoDel, PIE and ARED are suitable alike, but for corner scenarios clear recommendations can be given.

[1]  Michael Welzl,et al.  The new AQM kids on the block: An experimental evaluation of CoDel and PIE , 2014, 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS).

[2]  Vijay Subramanian,et al.  PIE: A lightweight control scheme to address the bufferbloat problem , 2013, 2013 IEEE 14th International Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR).

[3]  QUTdN QeO,et al.  Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance , 1993, TNET.

[4]  Monia Ghobadi,et al.  Proportional rate reduction for TCP , 2011, IMC '11.

[5]  Gorry Fairhurst,et al.  Evaluation of the impact of packet drops due to AQM over capacity limited paths , 2013, 2013 21st IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP).

[6]  Emmanuel Lochin,et al.  Revisiting old friends: is CoDel really achieving what RED cannot? , 2014, CSWS@SIGCOMM.

[7]  Sally Floyd,et al.  Adaptive RED: An Algorithm for Increasing the Robustness of RED's Active Queue Management , 2001 .

[8]  Mirja Kühlewind,et al.  VMSimInt: a network simulation tool supporting integration of arbitrary kernels and applications , 2014, SimuTools.

[9]  Van Jacobson,et al.  Controlling Queue Delay , 2012, ACM Queue.