From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A6AE3CB44 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id d8so896076qtm.0 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:19:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LJ8MCpN8LrNKih6yMZCmSDkg3fR0ziOzYDwHRbjIoOY=; b=XTtY6B5k1QrXPi6VYbaCa/J7LOKTNkubrOsw2skXCtpK7c9+MiJwbh5yuyYKmRMR3l 5PBAkDhM+PVEzxJkhNCdjlYPoERt3dq8xGMu+TKMQE5QnIyoJ/6B3E15MxHDHCELMFSU IyEom0iKAwUZWSoanBxsMhiI2QulWiknRmWxY7gfuNSRQscKI+e1RqR0eaW96WkhdGlh 1iVQ+FABjQnpCx7bYV6xsNOdJUi5yVKQVk86byX+mETFmCXPk+Nj/UvrQi9tKkbQ6s5G rrMfDj5Pl1Y0b9/9Pncg9wwgZeiIGHgpibdxvVlY/5hQE/+P/0sRnJY1iYhl0225SYNX QZGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LJ8MCpN8LrNKih6yMZCmSDkg3fR0ziOzYDwHRbjIoOY=; b=Ixi4hTb6yUB3Z8SeLB2qEHqzdcMiNKKkZEWHCwsXy/je70HFl+WYl2kvEHzkfJMWFQ 2K7GNhTuE4uOSQHkYDh2I6B5M2XwnqNSauw8fN1F8mYfLSHs+5KHIjuIjlNuETsnIRxK ZtOpWWcsOBtgUy83Yy7sFl4aRxVCmhHMwmf2TY9nCpRDLVgXkrH6RVcjlwPcvgM4fOrh bSoAFH8q78IwoJT2C3Xo4m4Kq4MRBqjjcl/GjdsZ9doKvmNU6v7y/pBy5iz2hWuNiyUn xb8t9QpQFOoUR5BVX1r4k9Rr4V2EzIcU7ShH7PauG4Ndjo7vgdyY/5n7ct0zEwnWZgJi ig+g== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCTMBcUNTvRfjtHWyfy28Jugp7JG6Bb8axVOllEIlktWp4gnu8G fI3GWgcCPgJZcc/IMNuM1c+S3Ng4P5SQXknZPu5Z2A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2259MrK0C1GoLncRMKtEvwTiA6bJMvnzilEkBKMZP2VwVCmIQONgwimcvT8WrP5JxH8z8ZfpJf/GzZnwmz4Yzgs= X-Received: by 10.200.23.235 with SMTP id r40mr3214727qtk.314.1518463180925; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:19:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.168.213 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:19:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <53c420c9-1421-97dd-1a77-15db488ad9ee@gmail.com> References: <53c420c9-1421-97dd-1a77-15db488ad9ee@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:19:40 -0800 Message-ID: To: Jan Ceuleers Cc: Jim Gettys , bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] The Blind Men and the Elephant. 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: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:19:41 -0000 On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Jan Ceuleers wro= te: > On 12/02/18 18:55, Dave Taht wrote: >> I would certainly like to see translations and outreach into China... >> Taiwan... Japan... India... Central and South America... Africa... >> >> but to me the simpler thing would be to garner folk to ask at >> vendor/isp press conferences: "Have you implemented RFC8290 yet? If >> not, when?" > > Devil's advocate: "I don't intend to implement this because, as the > document says, it is only intended for examination, experimental > implementation and evaluation. I make real products, not experimental-one= s." > Certainly at the time we started the RFC (2013? sigh...), we considered FQ_Codel experimental. After a flood of very useful papers ( a bunch of which jg cites, more on google scholar), and a ton of actual deployment, I grew pretty confident it could actually go standards track, but by then it was very late in the process. The "last" patches for fq_codel arrived (and are in the RFC8290), for doing a bulk drop on overload, and for leveraging pre-existing (hardware or vpn offloaded) hash information only a year ago. ( https://www.mail-archive.com/aqm@ietf.org/msg01783.html ) - but there have been continuous improvements all over the stack, notably in the flow dissector, and there is work around it trying to make things more lockless. And that said, even the august, 2012, implementation of fq_codel was and remains totally deployable. I certainly consider the other main RFC (pie) far more experimental than fq_codel is, as it had not seen any deployment. I'd had high hopes we'd see it in at least one piece of Cisco's gear by now. pie-docsis 3.1 is now available in 3 devices, so I'm looking forward to results from there. There are still some other pieces of work, like L2S and BBR, that affect primarily the codel+ecn parts of the algorithm, that I hope settle down one day. I figure we'd aim for an rfc8290bis after, say, two more years of deployment, somehow incorporating the work we did on "ending the anomaly" in wifi, and I'd hope, also for a hardware and LTE implementation. I don't intend for what's in sch_cake to end up as an RFC. It's dual BSD/GPL licensed and I'd hope that would be enough. Needed is something "else" that would address the rate limiting and queue management needs of the ISP->home part of the connection without doing all the work on the home router. that's something that I'd hope the chip makers were already all over. Could use a dpdk implementation. --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619