Re: [Cake] [Cerowrt-devel] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-06 is in last call

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:34 AM Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> >> The problem with CAKE/FQ and background traffic is that it can't tell if
> >> there is congestion or not, and things like LEDBAT can't backoff and try
> >> to avoid causing congestion. So your previous email about allowing some
> >> congestion to take place on LE would be good as then protocols that try to
> >> avoid causing congestion would have a way to do so.
> >
> > I do not like that the standard allows for total starvation. I would
> > prefer it had a minimum of 5%.
>
> I fully agree, and that would work even if all LE traffic was put into
> single queue with 5% of total bw, and even if that had a 1 second FIFO
> with tail drop.

We don't quite agree.

"Every application has the right to one packet in the network" - John Nagle

Cake adheres to that as closely as possible, yet still keeps latency
low for all applications background, priority or best effort. fq_codel
doesn't, which leads to shorter queue lengths when ECN is in heavy
use. I wish cake would more aggressively drop ECN packets.

Sadly cake's uptake is a bit slow, as it is a bit slow.

>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se



-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740