> On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> 
> Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net <mailto:pete@heistp.net>> writes:
> 
>> That said, unless there’s an obvious reason for this that’s fixable,
>> I’m fine with how it is, considering the improvement. :)
> 
> Cool! And you haven't seen any regressions in other usage? :)

To be honest, today’s the first time I tried it and I haven’t done any testing on it beyond fairness. (So, ship it!)

At least, I haven’t seen any other problems in this one-armed routing scenario or a regular host to host scenario.

Host fairness seems “mostly good" no matter what values I choose for the number of flows of the four clients, flow fairness still looks good, and I don’t see any problems starting and stopping different numbers of flows mid-test.

Pete