From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 C08C83BA8E for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.16.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LqzIJ-1hOCia0gj5-00ee7e; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:40:47 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <87pnsu3xac.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:40:46 +0100 Cc: Georgios Amanakis , Cake List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0DF65079-C5D1-4853-A310-9FABE978105A@gmx.de> References: <20190116033430.8446-1-gamanakis@gmail.com> <87pnsumg8s.fsf@toke.dk> <87pnsu3xac.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:vQjKKCYANpUzhvWquCF9htIbsOVkJHFTPZW9StGGnuGpfp8U8vc wL2J9wUY5vlZHcYciDb0mUujpn3r12IL+4P3tt3QbDZVnj5lKxYoJS/1znJh/4sEiw/eyr6 D6zWvW+lXgLPaq56deaSUDIyhI30cVMeG42wsA3aYpF+ZwJo1Rh+jzlcrYGFyqSZmXQIe5f +5AbN3avveWyU20VkvhTA== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:nv9r5x38nPA=:AGyFLK8AimgYJiCdIrj9dj tzCsbi+Q5YYuHUFMGSBOwA7bXID/IiYISm9Vh5jFahokk/myRPVPlQ4fhrL7pA+0+8gQDeXv/ XCTFi42uornwn0Vqy44Esi3P+gqhilX8J05eH/UIALiIyK2e6W8/BIYuZw2MzwCbzHkgavGXp 7V/nIk4spw0h5vzTBCCKNrRKGNkJ8DY+quQ/FoVZddBob5AB1/G6gEIiCLNFHjv7m1jnO+47E QG6qbwKG4w9qineYxFgVa7PRxYM+w4Y1oK2WwTKv2pz4B+ZYo1yDf9C/9FIJwvbZDKCyc3NEk VMFAoiiN59P9wfF8l5p+SZ58K3oJdGaSAMWeWLBQC8T7cGOPC+tfP5uw5rmyc6dUU31iMt61l g0pAOSk+BZXa+dUWRHGQ8OP1fFG9K8GZ6SXNht6ZozOEbBmuW7nHx2Mmx5LT1dwWq6CobEHUz 4pots/gY0CEIr9IpnBQZRnwpJlMbYOCabgqvo4d/uBb2zSgyf42Yrhrtb3WG9/x2ZJTpstMW2 y/0VqHWAt7rAL2O5fqDeq0Yz3GNktpY9LMpl/jVd9Or29Swg+MYQtzjPCyWTqRuPk9nbzmWKH AahgBHIP9sZ74LdoZibKGUH/0TsBTAm4CWKt4gX9aTR+hrt0VhyY+/YyTOzCrxH68QOzGhMp1 sZX9BlNftgo6Q2+dTJhp/lOjJnMXCOnGPmbKK87qUPXuE793DDvbzG23kGE4coMM5sOB3tV5o oDwjeRgR1huGRG6bco4WdB0GM6yBBi8TxqEJgLCDjFA6KX2tTptHVDqF6aZIHvw3fxKf/sZ1b 1fExIhoWdHMarBKILdjd86z4cecPF/s+zAsIlDGIuyN/Bfh3O2KAf64ld69eyTjgU6HVPbNXk t3CZQQN+Ruxg8nKWQxKgW1Qdx7vCiFZptf09SEyL1FHbBrCkSHs9pwshOuSdYseXAFx96hQqJ T2WJ2j0ahpA== Subject: Re: [Cake] dual-src/dsthost unfairness, only with bi-directional traffic X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 13:40:53 -0000 Hi Toke, > On Jan 18, 2019, at 14:33, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Georgios Amanakis writes: >=20 >> Yes, exactly. Would be interesting to hear what Jonathan, Toke and >> others think. I want to see if fairness is preserved in this case = with >> sparse flows only. Could flent do this? >=20 > Well, sparse flows are (by definition) not building a queue, so it > doesn't really make sense to talk about fairness for them. How would = you > measure that? >=20 > This is also the reason I agree that they shouldn't be counted for = host > fairness calculation purposes, BTW... That leads to a question (revealing my lack of detailed knowledge) if = there is a sufficient number of new flows (that should qualify as = new/sparse) that servicing all of them takes longer than each queue = accumulating new packets, at what point in time are these flows = considered "unworthy" of sparse flow boosting? Or differetly how i cake = going to deal with a UDP flood where the 5 tuple hash is different for = all packets (say by spoofing ports or randomly picking dst addresses)?=20= Best Regards >=20 > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake