  Active queue management (AQM) drops packets early in the growth of a queue,
to prevent a capacity-seeking sender (e.g. TCP) from keeping the buffer full.
An AQM can mark instead of dropping packets if they indicate support for
explicit congestion notification (ECN). Two modern AQMs (PIE and CoDel) are
designed to keep queuing delay to a target by dropping packets as load varies.
This memo uses Curvy RED and an idealised but sufficient model of TCP traffic
to explain why attempting to keep delay constant is a bad idea, because it
requires excessively high drop at high loads. This high drop itself takes over
from queuing delay as the dominant cause of delay, particularly for short
flows. At high load, a link is better able to preserve reasonable performance
if the delay target is softened into a curve rather than a hard cap. The
analysis proves that the same AQM can be deployed in different parts of a
network whatever the capacity with the same optimal configuration. A surprising
corollary of this analysis concerns cases with a highly aggregated number of
flows through a bottleneck. Although aggregation reduces queue variation, if
the target queuing delay of the AQM at that bottleneck is reduced to take
advantage of this aggregation, TCP will still increase the loss level because
of the reduction in round trip time. The way to resolve this dilemma is to
overprovision (a formula is provided). Nonetheless, for traffic with ECN
enabled, there is no harm in an AQM holding queuing delay constant or
configuring an AQM to take advantage of any reduced delay due to aggregation
without over-provisioning. Recently, the requirement of the ECN standard that
ECN must be treated the same as drop has been questioned. The insight that the
goals of an AQM for drop and for ECN should be different proves that this doubt
is justified.
