Re: [Bloat] cake + ipv6

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>]

Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:14 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>> It depends. A 'sparse' flow should get consistent priority
>
>> That's per flow. But you're misunderstanding the 100ms value. That's the
>> 'interval', which is (simplifying a bit) the amount of time CAKE will
>> wait until it reacts to a flow building a queue.
>
>> If a flow exceeds its fair share *rate*,
>> it'll no longer (from CAKEs) PoV be a 'sparse flow', and it'll get the
>> same treatment as all other flows (round-robin scheduling), and if it
>> keeps sending at this higher rate, it'll keep being scheduled in this
>> way. If the flow is non-elastic (i.e., doesn't slows down in response to
>> packet drops), it'll self-congest and you'll see that as increased
>> latency.
>
> Ah! Thank you *very* much for this explanation. I greatly appreciate
> the effort everyone in this group puts into explaining (and tolerating
> :) ) new users of cake.
>
> In my case: I am happy to report this is *not* a bug or an issue with
> cake, as I originally thought. I am able to reproduce the issue I was
> seeing (high ping times as reported by the xbox game's network
> monitoring) w/o cake being in the mix at all. So this issue is either
> with how I've configured / built openwrt, or with my wireless network
> mesh, or with the xbox itself. It is NOT an issue with cake.
>
> Thank you all very much again. I will continue to use and test cake
> and let you know if I encounter further issues with cake itself.

You're welcome! Happy experimenting :)

-Toke