Niche: Isolation-oriented competition-aware AQM on programmable switches


Abstract

To meet heterogeneous application demands, the Internet must employ multiple congestion control algorithms(CCAs) concurrently. Coexisting congestion control algorithms exhibit divergent performance when competing for resources such as bandwidth and buffers. However, mainstream queue management lacks algorithm-aware differentiation, leading fairness-focused bandwidth allocation to overlook latency and buffer utilization, thus failing to achieve holistic, system-level optimization. In this paper, we introduce Niche, an active queue management (AQM) for programmable switches with online contention awareness and dynamic isolation. Niche extracts buffer-behavior features to classify traffic online and isolates flows in physical queues to suppress aggressive flows. By integrating dynamic bandwidth allocation, Niche enforces bounded fairness while optimizing buffer utilization and minimizing latency and jitter. Validated on the P4-programmable switches, Niche employs physical-queue isolation to mitigate resource contention, which directly reduces buffer occupancy while significantly improving latency, jitter, tail latency, and throughput fairness, thereby achieving systemic performance gains.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].