Re: [Bloat] vendor status-s for bufferbloat solutions

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1569 bytes --]


Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
    > It would be nice to have a set of official statements from vendors
    > regarding their bufferbloat solutions vis a vis the various RFCs
    > (notably rfc8290) before the ietf blog entry goes out.

Years ago, I was trying to get ISOC's Deploy360 folks to help with doing
this.

    > My interchange with the tomahawk 3 guy was fruitless. Apple's kind
    > of exited the router market. Cable manufacturers are obligated to
    > implement docsis-pie in 3.1. Microsoft has made a big push recently to
    > modernize their TCPs. A bunch of router makers did embrace fq_codel
    > (calling it various things like streamboost, adaptive qos, etc), and a
    > few calling it what it is notably evenroute, and ubnt in their
    > edgerouter products, sophos, all of lede/openwrt/asuswrt/etc... but
    > I'm still unaware of any implementations on ONTs, CMTSes, DSLAMs, DSL
    > firmwares, MOCA...

    > What I kind of envision is everybody here annoying their favorite
    > forums for their favorite product and asking what of the outputs of
    > the ietf aqm working group they planned to implement.

Yeah...  So I went through IETF types and through sales channels at one
point, and despite knowing that companies in questions were working on
solutions, nobody knew anything.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]