“SQM” is shorthand for an integrated network system that performs better per-packet/per flow network scheduling, active queue length management (AQM), traffic shaping/rate limiting, and QoS (prioritization).
“Classic” QoS does prioritization only.
“Classic” AQM manages queue lengths only.
“Classic” packet scheduling does some form of fair queuing only.
“Classic” traffic shaping and policing sets hard limits on queue lengths and transfer rates
“Classic” rate limiting sets hard limits on network speeds.
It has become apparent that in order to ensure a good internet experience all of these techniques need to be combined and used as an integrated whole, and also represented as such to end-users."
QoE is a better, less overloaded, in the "qualitative, perceived" sort of description.
So (after endless debates) - we defined SQM as as a superset of classic as-defined-for-internet QoS and hoped for the best. (https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Smart_Queu... )
There's been plethora of other trade names for what we do with htb+fq_codel - streamboost, adaptive qos, etc.
I like that eero, edgerouter, and openwrt and derivatives also call what we do sqm. It simplifies the discussion, and the core scripts for linux generically are available as the sqm-scripts on github.
I also hope we see more RFPs specifying RFC8290.
Sorry yeah, I forgot about how the term has been mangled over the years. I was coming from a 3GPP perspective where the term is specifically defined as experience [0]
In particular:
* only the QoS perceived by end-user matter
* QoS definitions have to be future proof;
* QoS has to be provided end-to-end.
* QoS attributes (or mapping of them) should not be restricted to one or few external QoS control mechanisms
Not the first time the ivory tower of Telecomms has been out of touch with the outside world ...
[0] 4.1 (p. 7) https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123100_123199/123107/05...
Especially regarding SQM... Is SQM just a new name for QOS or am I missing something?