From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2333A20016F for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id p5OCqT3m070941 ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:52:30 +0200 (CEST) X-Ids: 164 Received: from lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr (lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.57]) by hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97A47C36BC; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jch by lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qa5s4-0002Gh-CV; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:52:28 +0200 From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Dave Taht Subject: Re: [Babel-users] QoS for system critical packets on wireless References: <7iboxpldmq.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:52:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Dave Taht's message of "Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:50:51 -0600") Message-ID: <7iliwrpf1v.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 4E04888D.011 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4E04888D.011/134.157.168.1/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/ Cc: bloat-devel , babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org X-BeenThere: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers working on AQM, device drivers, and networking stacks" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:24:48 -0000 >> Once you've fought the bloat, there's hopefully no further need to >> classify these packets. > As for classification, with asymmetric networks, the canonical example > of some level needed is moving interactive packets up in priority over > uploads. Unless your network is badly underprovisioned, some form of roughly fair share scheduling (say, SFQ) should be all you need. > Once you admit there is some need for classication, I certainly don't. We should be simplifying our networks, not making them even more complex. (Dave, I'm seriously worried you're heading in the wrong direction.) > I admit some fondness for diffserv... The first step is to admit you have a problem ;-) -- Juliusz