From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dave@taht.net>
Received: from mail.taht.net (mail.taht.net [176.58.107.8])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB5FF3CBD5
 for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dancer.taht.net (unknown
 [IPv6:2603:3024:1536:86f0:eea8:6bff:fefe:9a2])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.taht.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52D3621367;
 Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:06:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
To: Benjamin Cronce <bcronce@gmail.com>
Cc: erik.taraldsen@telenor.com,  cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
References: <1502267789764.33636@telenor.com>
 <CAJ_ENFHQodDtV9dUc6UC6aTnrpjRBGkrb8xVc=8G77CEYFWYEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:06:33 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAJ_ENFHQodDtV9dUc6UC6aTnrpjRBGkrb8xVc=8G77CEYFWYEA@mail.gmail.com>
 (Benjamin Cronce's message of "Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:16:40 -0500")
Message-ID: <87shgtap86.fsf@taht.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Cake] Fast snack, QUIC CAKE?
X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation <cake.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake>
List-Post: <mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:06:36 -0000

Benjamin Cronce <bcronce@gmail.com> writes:

> CAKE only works for endpoints you control. QUIC can benefit in
> situations where you don't control the chokepoints. Not sure how QUIC
> interacts with CAKE. I can't see it being more than a small percent
> better or worse.

It is not so much quic vs cake as the underlying congestion control
algorithm being used by quic - the codel component of cake works well
against cubic or reno, but BBR treats much of codel's signaling as
noise. The core benefit of cake (or fq_codel) against BBR is in the "FQ"
part which makes multiple flows share more equally, immediately.

There is a lot to QUIC to like, but much of the stuff innovated there
has migrated back into regular linux tcp stacks (pacing, notably)

>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:36 AM, <erik.taraldsen@telenor.com> wrote:
>
>     Has anybody here done any experimentation on CAKE (and others)
>     when using QUIC? Or other real world insights into other aspects
>     of QUIC? For example proper CAKE and TCP version of youtube vs
>     crappy quing/latency and QUIC.
>     
>     
>     The overlapping design goals is making the user experience snappy,
>     but QUICs approach is to control the end points with a new
>     protocol to replace TCP. (Or improve TCP in the future).
>     
>     
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC
>     
>     
>     
>     -Erik
>     _______________________________________________
>     Cake mailing list
>     Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake