From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa1-x32.google.com (mail-oa1-x32.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::32]) (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 9D4E63B29E for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 14:43:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-oa1-x32.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-29e70c9dc72so1234341fac.0 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:43:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736538227; x=1737143027; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=nXEq4/skBlunyYQ+4mCCmYu1uDlZRX8ESoiJQIzfdNE=; b=EU0DoENwnZSrzdE+LDDBdCnRk36QjMWSSPWcJmYh/wPSfLAdMuOZltpJPw4+rDvPZW LfkE2SfEyBMdjrQV5wepJF2WSqyKtRDBZn5KHS3UeDdGDRkc7cMdmFJZ48iEmgakwiQw ZV2sYrxKdEnzZiRmf8Jnhis8qtg2HZND80oCmgUrP9J6K5JH9YvhrETD5sC9d8CKZsM+ drZfDwr4gZfpjvEiDgUF9gXSbGvVsVuvO5qOEdhXe7rsHWVfuEubk2X2nhpwETXRojLe zMGiEsxZlIDyE+wtTHQlvqpD67JURpqvXLxkCpcCgUDKS0de6+SwTNeSK91m/kQSipJx 74cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736538227; x=1737143027; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nXEq4/skBlunyYQ+4mCCmYu1uDlZRX8ESoiJQIzfdNE=; b=U7OCb+xceV4H20uRiubemhhZq/eMfm8sCr63wxkJA27G7cD1DQGTctVlmo2DTQCgSP GDoENfvGrI8zi8T6rlfDxE4eWrVNNQLBJVjpPUB0R+OWroDl8nam0b+WVTwanmUpHzse zG43Cgq0/EltTqhwueo3nkjKwFAkLPG2N887PxSmXikhyJvtxZuSoFUubFMKFZVoFwLx DtgwA6sqXBscI/U7IxOknQqDwfFLBjdRFMtlVsBI/0k90/yWCl5USemVS6rb4vHW+dks njcTp80HT5bG4GkB89RoJxsD1sODpT5Tl35w7QknTjQWPxNgzh2SPRIKgRSyXYkaKUrg rcAQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWvGIVOuIiTNkw3P0MPoERi88dAfsbv8IGeNhCzlMIjtbuob18ScObbJg/QP1vvFNA7hCVF@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwfU7nIKMI5h3Lhk/ml8RoZvlQo14lEuFYIpvVqnitHcT332I+l PMJNzTc59wrg+t2G7o/P4L8HExJfQTjjJFXBNunUZRLcbCO9rhPO4xBt8algCZ7yzG9VcSpdr4M VvnzWokTVuSIdfJLcIK9m2TAbew0= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuabmJ26Osva0PpvW83Zs2C0Ztaed9vc/yZtnd7PJemBI8gKGou2o8WNSRSDGU MAKW6cyQJfeX5e5bAhJe83wEtjKhQim0QXv5beDMubSzO6ys6uFsoojnSyCOhX42teHVAXFiz X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGH5ZgcT6Itq42IwlqvSz+iG/NjTrsXstroBy367TGycdVvWM3Cil7mS99Rn9oQOSmoMWyTuSyWoDp9GUL3+vI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:a0c8:b0:29e:4346:7fb9 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2aa0677967dmr5920671fac.22.1736538227061; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:43:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250110155531.300303-1-toke@redhat.com> <2FE6B2E2-9A34-47C1-B203-F0C424F00704@gmx.de> <898E9FB0-D92E-4421-8CCD-1B9F4A3D9D5D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <898E9FB0-D92E-4421-8CCD-1B9F4A3D9D5D@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:43:33 -0800 X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvaJxwVDgL4pYSUkzi2js1PyPqy9s06zn9vHgGUP2lHfRfFgSWtzm4eXfe0 Message-ID: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: Sebastian Moeller , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] [PATCH net-next] sched: sch_cake: Align QoS treatment to Windows and Zoom 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: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:43:47 -0000 ok, I concede on NQB. Do we at least have agreement that CS5 belongs in the VI queue, not the VO queue, on diffserv4? On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:43=E2=80=AFAM Jonathan Morton wrote: > > > On 10 Jan, 2025, at 7:07 pm, Dave Taht via Cake wrote: > > > > I do not think NQB belongs in Voice (which shares priority with > > netcontrol, etc). I also do not think it belongs in best effort as the > > intent is to get a quick response to a short flow. yes, FQ solves a > > lot of problems, but > > As far as I'm concerned, FQ implements everything that NQB wants. In a s= ystem implementing FQ, treating NQB traffic as best-effort is the Right Thi= ng. > > And I second the notion that slavishly copying wthe broken default behavi= our of WiFi routers is the Wrong Thing. > > - Jonathan Morton > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos