From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (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 7B2593B2A4 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:05:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id n127so226500324qkf.0 for ; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 15:05:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j8t3wbzKwVkuF4DHsIv6H3L6J9lszFIOEDNXCyRe7R4=; b=HXtsmiFO/85xpMrJgGtGYFSD5rSBKlkKwxC1v/IySynYJXcetjNDX+H/KK16PWgEpm sB+bweiOJB7vFIChZYjQ9OJXRBo52L8WsANqRNwXS2Rsd4qb8VQaP/psTwhXqRDWt1vF lodYKM5cdQU/eIWmB6ORyTUH15uQbRgOe0HMsq2YpEFe36xqpJPu4c+dGtXNWUjivus8 1ZrXpcufj7iUTtpHTWD2erklin7W4CLsvvsIBByEqQYxJlKNk4mEJjRDoaspcxwVtyqW n4tJwl2wfru1qT2j9otfBs6f2YTQ3XUIitvxwT53g8YFElQGj7xwL10XMXKf0GGZy36X JD6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j8t3wbzKwVkuF4DHsIv6H3L6J9lszFIOEDNXCyRe7R4=; b=GIsrl8PZrty3hILlX6U/4xhKcb5MK+y1iQLSB4KpgFJGwBD6BvW8lLbZSxBKTLagYy wtMheHVwtJvPrUyGUsStq6tBMJ12dBmx3+ucyfMWe0oQYDZe/2K0Zu0CpxDbI6JqM1C6 sBm74t+lxhEJxPvo4ZgjyoAC6G/maH5to47vTaYbQ6iMsQ2JogqpyjG3/7eVnRI6zN+N S+f2yg4OAv9g7McxypPCPxYbfuER04/H0jgAPcc1ZZ8729AGoVEHUbI/73FqlxAu9rDZ 3U1ucyUHBQs+tmXc3LV/TKXpgv7P/rWJOw+b4yNfohCMsv/vktszkgAxaJ9v3WS7b6dt qVGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mAhqGAf+tG3J4LnrTxzlCYNotiNsohjCIhtwZdTl180dtTDeoX5wjymYpnGYtMHb8h8nAt4XnCk5kX9g== X-Received: by 10.55.16.5 with SMTP id a5mr8866979qkh.17.1488668711036; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 15:05:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.142.132 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:05:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <95D56BA5-0C5E-4D2E-B28F-A8C957B5F65D@gmail.com> References: <752ad487-0826-ba92-6bbf-a46d031a10ee@gmail.com> <95D56BA5-0C5E-4D2E-B28F-A8C957B5F65D@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:05:10 -0800 Message-ID: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: Andy Furniss , Cake List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Cake] low bandwidth default params best effort vs voice latency. 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: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 23:05:11 -0000 One thing the original sqm-scripts did (with fq_codel) was explicitly deprioritize ping with a filter. I had written in my original "wondershaper must die" rant how stupid it was to prioritize ping upwards to "impress your friends" - as that was the case in many, many a wshaper implementation I'd seen. I only just now noticed that rant does not have the images inline. "Oh, man, ping's prioritized:" https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/attachments/131229050304_wshaper-800-220.svg As for explicit depriorization, well, I took a lot of flack from some ietfers about lowering it below best effort, and I felt the additional classification needed was excessive for cake, directly. Some OSes already do mark it with a background class. I still think it's a good idea as it makes ping floods against (for example) your entire 10. network (which happened to me under worm attack once) - vanish.