From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 159483B2A4; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 15:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id x2HJcGpw041458; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:38:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id x2HJcFuG041457; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-Id: <201903171938.x2HJcFuG041457@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: To: Loganaden Velvindron Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT) CC: Mikael Abrahamsson , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 14:44:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Ecn-sane] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 19:38:19 -0000 > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote: > > > > > Granted, it still remains to be seen whether SCE in practice can match > > > the results of L4S, and L4S was here first. But it seems to me L4S comes > > > with some problems that have not yet been examined, and that are nicely > > > dodged by a SCE-based approach. > > > > I'm actually not that interested in an academic competition about what > > solution gives the ultimate "best" outcome in simulation or in a lab. > > > > I am interested in good enough solutions that are actually deployable and > > will get deployed, and doesn't have any pathological behaviour when it > > comes to legacy traffic. > > > > Right now the Internet is full of deep FIFOs and they're not going away, > > and they're not getting FQ_CODEL or CAKE. > > > > CAKE/FQ_CODEL is nice, but it's not being deployed at the typical > > congestion points we have in real life. These devices would have a much > > easier time getting PIE or even RED, if it was just implemented. > > > > is there an open source implementation of PIE which is close to what > is used by the DOCSIS modems ? I do not know if it is close to the DOCSIS modems, but FreeBSD has PIE implemented /usr/src/sys/netpfil/ipfw/dn_aqm_pie.c /usr/src/sys/netpfil/ipfw/dn_aqm_pie.h /usr/src/sys/netpfil/ipfw/dn_sched_fq_pie.c > > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org