RFC 7567: IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This memo presents recommendations to the Internet community concerning measures to improve and preserve Internet performance. It presents a strong recommendation for testing, standardization, and widespread deployment of active queue management (AQM) in network devices to improve the performance of today's Internet. It also urges a concerted effort of research, measurement, and ultimate deployment of AQM mechanisms to protect the Internet from flows that are not sufficiently responsive to congestion notification. Based on 15 years of experience and new research, this document replaces the recommendations of RFC 2309.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7567
- Published
- July 2015
- Authors
- F. Baker; G. Fairhurst
- Status
- BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 31
- Also known as
- BCP197
- Obsoletes:
- RFC 2309
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7574Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)Current
July 2015
- RFC 7635Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Extension for Third-Party AuthorizationCurrent
August 2015
- RFC 7443Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) UsagesCurrent
January 2015
- RFC 7430Analysis of Residual Threats and Possible Fixes for Multipath TCP (MPTCP)Current
July 2015
- RFC 7713Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts, Abstract Mechanism, and RequirementsCurrent
December 2015
- RFC 7376Problems with Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Long-Term Authentication for Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)Current
September 2014
- RFC 7778Mobile Communication Congestion Exposure ScenarioCurrent
March 2016
- RFC 7350Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as Transport for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)Current
August 2014
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?