Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>]

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> writes:

>> On 18 Apr, 2018, at 6:17 pm, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Just a thought, in egress mode in the typical deployment we expect,
>> the bandwidth leading into cake will be >> than the bandwidth out of
>> cake, so I would argue that the package droppage might be acceptable
>> on egress as there is bandwidth to "waste" while on ingress the issue
>> very much is that all packets cake sees already used up parts of the
>> limited transfer time on the bottleneck link and hence are more
>> "precious", no? Users wanting this new behavior could still use the
>> ingress keyword even on egress interfaces?
>
> Broadly speaking, that should indeed counter most of the negative
> effects you'd expect from disabling this tweak in egress mode. But it
> doesn't really answer the question of whether there's a compelling
> *positive* reason to do so. I want to see a use case that holds up.

What you're saying here is that you basically don't believe there are
any applications where a bulk TCP flow would also want low queueing
latency? :)

-Toke