{"draft":"draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-12","doc_id":"RFC7141","title":"Byte and Packet Congestion Notification","authors":["B. Briscoe","J. Manner"],"format":["ASCII","HTML"],"page_count":"41","pub_status":"BEST CURRENT PRACTICE","status":"BEST CURRENT PRACTICE","source":"Transport and Services Working Group","abstract":"This document provides recommendations of best current practice for\r\ndropping or marking packets using any active queue management (AQM)\r\nalgorithm, including Random Early Detection (RED), BLUE, Pre-\r\nCongestion Notification (PCN), and newer schemes such as CoDel\r\n(Controlled Delay) and PIE (Proportional Integral controller\r\nEnhanced).  We give three strong recommendations: (1) packet size\r\nshould be taken into account when transports detect and respond to\r\ncongestion indications, (2) packet size should not be taken into\r\naccount when network equipment creates congestion signals (marking,\r\ndropping), and therefore (3) in the specific case of RED, the byte-\r\nmode packet drop variant that drops fewer small packets should not be\r\nused.  This memo updates RFC 2309 to deprecate deliberate\r\npreferential treatment of small packets in AQM algorithms.","pub_date":"February 2014","keywords":["active queue management","aqm","availability","denial of service","dos","quality of service","qos","congestion control","fairness","incentives","architecture layering","protocol"],"obsoletes":[],"obsoleted_by":[],"updates":["RFC2309","RFC2914"],"updated_by":[],"see_also":["BCP0041"],"doi":"10.17487\/RFC7141","errata_url":"https:\/\/www.rfc-editor.org\/errata\/rfc7141"}