From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEB463B25D for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.136.220.202] ([95.91.196.76]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LanoO-1bseUu2pOS-00kQ6X; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:17:08 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: moeller0 In-Reply-To: <31D7D84F-3CA9-46C5-AB52-79E3A1CFFCF0@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 21:17:06 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <75FFB40F-2208-4039-A377-44C0959A6FB3@gmx.de> References: <574FFE52.1040501@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <2A84540D-AA30-4BD0-AF9A-5510EA00B7E8@gmail.com> <87a8j3fyxc.fsf@toke.dk> <6F215C7B-D4B2-484B-B728-61E0B83FF30E@gmx.de> <0EDA2CBF-E6FF-449F-ACDF-909526CEE140@gmx.de> <31D7D84F-3CA9-46C5-AB52-79E3A1CFFCF0@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:pvEmsiTlAXysbn9WERUKrTUs7XZz30z51b7sYXEGSrbEZt/Z7wE ZBcvKcSvYJx38d9uRRuRMNhAzzV9qBVv3ncOD6fIn7yX6TSsKnk7hBcSSZulpIWJcoyECcY s8HJpCigxnZF3X/b6mDErLvpdHOG6nHXD976W+fVDF2DhVeroJOF1qO7kF+Fzq+YqwPtFQI P+yaZcWX5cEz13vt0X0qw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:ZALAnKBcDKE=:gpAC2GaUFcHmAZ6v3uvxUQ uYNE6weJLx+vSYAIGbY/Ikfcx9Ea/UpP8fR82Hj7UaPPOXFfTGxszuPWvxAKxbhmkGXKt3EM8 GoRapGERr+w+8qJjalxIjCVxiGtHIbteNAnM2y1yZTrJNkuUbLFRNlN+G1OAcaDXDp1IfC+EV vju2eqI+J++DHCaC5D/hiwYzA2UOZOYeMrVf3aWZ4JfRu/neJuZykZZpuM0qZb3AQM3DfHstF mJmOs6PH3c3ACbjsybelhtbfm/6OPGIRwG/6Uw8cjc0h4ebYNnW/zK05/kbP//WSeVs8tXasz GZau4K8NdlTlzuu+engoGFGf8w7rNh5XC71eSyztZYL8qnwiQWm1aRtjaeYaDaTL67CGcc/jx Dd6h36HQ++NU8Ffx++MS4SfMPX6OHBxev9M6ytTRcFFdGLJNxUU6FDATwcIWi9W9SGT9IOiMc A7Na+j/RT6/KjfrCZfTySy3Q3LWqmLH33EpdMfh4m0/sdhmcb7lYuv0O1RBpyH24JfDag5ID4 7pspCdy2HuZHoC0t2LDArjcyjNWWeUM3d7n/jESn++lSRjpa1DXMWZaidRLSGtQ1ntz/BEa4Y eSSub+59gJlyrkSV7XaQVsSaBqcaugEe61+QJRQDxUG4TSa2FjiBCWQUTUYLe19vmrMEy892l WyomwkKQlrgYY1Jx53yJLET2g8m6+yEVA6sDAt+23IQd7KGr3WdhCFdaiXBYE9xmyueXhVtG4 +UcgXHIDOOTbkZCpEEq1iwnkL2tQAlvleKm2GOGnFze72GSYnwrs42/LPyZ4/bEen0d+n99wc NFR09JZ Subject: Re: [Cake] cake/tc - removal of atm/ptm/ethernet specific overhead keywords 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: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 19:17:13 -0000 > On Jun 2, 2016, at 20:55 , Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On 2 Jun, 2016, at 21:53, moeller0 wrote: >>=20 >> =E2=80=9Cconservative=E2=80=9D-keyword needs special care in = documentation as it is the only keyword that compounds = per-packet-overhead and specific framing >=20 > Not true. All of the ATM-specific encapsulation keywords - of which = there are ten others - also force ATM compensation on. This is obvious = in the code. >=20 > - Jonathan Morton >=20 I might not have picked the best example, but the current keywords make = it simple for me ;)=20 Let me rephrase then , it is not self-evident which keywords are = ATM-specific then=E2=80=A6 But humor me: tc qdisc add cake help Usage: ... cake [ bandwidth RATE | unlimited* | autorate_ingress ] [ rtt TIME | datacentre | lan | metro | regional | = internet* | oceanic | satellite | interplanetary ] [ besteffort | precedence | diffserv8 | diffserv4* ] [ flowblind | srchost | dsthost | hosts | flows* | = dual-srchost | dual-dsthost | triple-isolate ] [ atm | noatm* ] [ overhead N | conservative | raw* ] [ wash | nowash* ] [ memlimit LIMIT ] (* marks defaults) Where is it evident that =E2=80=9Cconservative=E2=80=9D includes atm = encapsulation? And what should a user expect that specifies =E2=80=9Cnoatm= conservative=E2=80=9D? So Jonathan, please, instead of trying to argue obvious = inconsistencies in the currently assigned encapsulation keywords away, = just go and make sure they are consistent and well documented.=20 Your postings in the overhead-matter make me question whether = you do fully understand the issue at hand in its full complexity; so by = all means go and collect input from users (usability and self-evidence = of the keywords) and experts (on the actual likelihood of = encapsulations). Best Regards Sebastian=