From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 7DB112006A1 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id CF72CA1; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:31:23 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1432639883; bh=A73bS/TfuWw6q5CvnCTd+J5OOmEvCl8JIcoppd3XxgE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=Qe4uwI6IFYonNSI7cQauzDv+bmM4XMy/rtNlokxV0EIYYTzWKIHlys3trxDIhlc3m nVPve+MnvDcOqgUgmr92Nv5056fsSjIgHC6qwVAqoPT4QrqgJJpQ9PssOCt+H2OEZn /cClrI3d57leOLSYc2uTnYJ7h61r4NnUFJ18D1gU= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C4C9F for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:31:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 13:31:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Bloat] CDG X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 11:32:43 -0000 Hi, I just read https://lwn.net/Articles/645115/ about CDG congestion control. After reading the article, I am left wondering how this kind of congestion control mechanisms handles being exposed to a token bucket policer: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/quality-of-service-qos/qos-policing/19645-policevsshape.html With this kind of rate limiting, there is never any buffering or increase in latency, you're only seeing packet drops, no other congestion signal. Anyone have any insight? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se