From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147])
	(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 2C79D21F196
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 05:39:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk
Received: by alrua-kau.kau.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id BC6333E3621; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:38:53 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toke.dk; s=201310;
	t=1424871534; bh=JDY52bXmMLoSzoZxmEIwuPSGL0edqRvCJEbKKgrLEEw=;
	h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To;
	b=MKdBCJlHH01ntlBOAQNlHrlUaZly/bZ7jdlQAxyMjFQ08s6PJXfv2u/Q5JJJApyJ7
	zgTs6njCCCDAQqbNNQo8y2qOQWCj7hu8OVhN5TzQyytK6uiS0DLDpb9lRbvGSK9wBD
	YMtvo5pHrsqKBILyhDmkiQvaLYBdvNnuRYKweZkI=
From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
References: <CADnS-2hPmb3zt6GvdbZjDuM10VgN5yvMrxigUL5Z_-nA-dOyjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1502250737150.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
	<201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
	<mck1t7$ies$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<FC82EEB0-5E7E-473F-B9B3-2BFEC06C7689@ifi.uio.no>
	<4A80D1F9-F4A1-4D14-AC75-958C5A2E8168@gmx.de>
	<3F47B274-B0E4-44F2-A434-E3C9F7D5D041@ifi.uio.no>
	<87twyaffv3.fsf@toke.dk>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1502251138490.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
	<1D438EDC-358D-4DD5-9B8D-89182256F66C@gmx.de>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1502251433230.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:38:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502251433230.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> (Mikael
	Abrahamsson's message of "Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:36:38 +0100 (CET)")
Message-ID: <871tleqff6.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] RED against bufferbloat
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:39:30 -0000

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> writes:

> I am very much aware that this is being done (I have done it myself),
> but my question was if someone had actually done this in a lab and
> found out how well it works in RRUL tests etc.

So you mean comparing the scenario where the AQM runs on both sides of
the bottleneck to one where it runs as an ingress shaper on one side
only?

-Toke