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 TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 151313CB36; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 80B5EB0; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:31:39 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1553164299; bh=arEmI3XPgWLnXPe77Lu5OCZeASUxyUaVPs976Yn57jU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:From; b=0026yGxoy69E1GINntUbXFeoq8kE9ROnUoBosy2vN+U5PruWz3idRSSTC3QYu9a6V 2w7MsWvdZPQAA3kuCTCcIzCwNCQssTfhtTiuJQLuvo/t2RudF2UhHR3/8N1nqvXQN4 ysP17xWi+oWsL9qAJT8u89OPZo/+hFj7/7jdig9E= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF0EAF; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:31:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:31:39 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Jonathan Morton cc: "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: [Bloat] can we setup a "how to get this into existing networks" get-together in Prague coming week? 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: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:31:41 -0000 On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Btw, in > http://1ukcym66nom10cmylunctf84-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TR-156_Issue-2-1.pdf > 5.2.x you can see how scheduling is done. If you'd like something like > that changed then anything new needs to go into documents like these in > order to get further deplyment. Btw, I reached out to some people here at the BBF about doing anti-bufferbloat in this context and getting this into the documents, and there is no reason why this can't be introduced. Now, the proposal needs to be "reasonable" and implementable, so if someone would be interested in work like that I'd like to hear from you. I have taken initiative in trying to come up with configuration guidance for operators for their existing equipment, and that could be a way forward. So this won't be "put CAKE or FQ_CODEL everywhere", but instead introduce configuration guidance regarding bufferbloat, best common practice for different deployment scenarios etc. Let's not try to boil the ocean right away, but let's try to point industry in the right direction. BBF creates documents that architects networks that connects ~1B households, so whatever we come up with could benefit lots of people. I understand that for some people here this will seem like stone age primive mechanisms, but it's still better than doing nothing at all (which is often the case). It would especially be beneficial to get similar guidance from several organisations (CableLabs and BBF would be two that immediately comes to mind). I'll be at the IETF meeting monday-friday coming week, can we set up a meeting with some interested parties and actually have a "how do we get this into networks" kind of meeting. It would not be "my mechanism is better than yours" meeting, I'm not interested in that in this context. I'm interested in "what can we do to improve the situation in the next 1-2 years including installed base". -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se