From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B315721F4E2 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbsn1 with SMTP id sn1so1889225obb.1 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OOeCHjt/dR6+T8Va8jbu3ymIDo1fHrNfffnv9xi38oM=; b=yU5kIJnFJ/fEO1VjlSIq3s26pT2ADUl4Z1la2qu8IBVP86i99oE5HORojabpDIQpE9 JpFnnek6oL4td3Oo4KhkEDNKeEq7VFYSTt9eKVjhbPl8rBwE3aMz1qRQmDJbiDBfDK3p m6keoKSC7ahOm1u9fnwQFp5a69pbfCGiNHffYAtsnXHOl2nGHKdxOOfbhRum4iThVKm/ mjUQ5nLDBmQEMuwRG0VqJ2vVVLrSeyus+5jO+IG8O2FcACdIROvEOJjT482VVVCknQ/w jG6ot8cSa2l72LN7wNGIuQwcK2QLG9SQOHEtv+a/tHfR2c6ECjw40yz7ij+gh/UNrPQJ 7sBQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.92.68 with SMTP id q65mr25018218oib.11.1434418813341; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:40:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] fragmenting for lowest per flow latency X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 01:40:43 -0000 On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > (I should probably create an alias for the crazy ideas like "devnull") > > but I have kind of wondered just how bad the fragmentation problem really= was, > and with peeling, already, we could also add fragmentation support, to > create tons of fragments... and see what breaks, and get even lower > per small packet flow latency when larger packets were present. > > I actually have a use case for this personally in that dnssec's rules > (eDNS0) for fragmentation were a real pain in the arse of late, and > *knowing* devices we work on handle fragments appropriately would be > nice. Whilst working through this crazy idea, I realized that the converse might be useful, doing reassembly of fragments along the way. > -- > Dave T=C3=A4ht > What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? > https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast