From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
To: Ryan Mounce <ryan@mounce.com.au>
Cc: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via Cake" <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] Upstream submission of dual-mode fairness patch
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:27:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E937ABB3-E0AA-4BE3-998F-A059051B7863@heistp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAN+fvRYhOP+dG3FystJ3BT8iihDcmsF8TtH4_Oq+ns9URxUXyg@mail.gmail.com>
> On Mar 4, 2019, at 5:22 AM, Ryan Mounce <ryan@mounce.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 13:47, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Mar, 2019, at 4:55 am, Georgios Amanakis <gamanakis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> …the fairness logic wouldn't account for that "ingress traffic" and would yield fairer results.
>>
>> Well there we have a quandary, since presently it enforces fairness of *load* on the bottleneck link, but the change would alter that to fairness of *delivered* traffic. The current setup is arguably more robust against adversarial traffic, don't you think?
I think that’s the best argument for the current behavior.
> And it provides an incentive to use ECN so that congestion signals can
> be sent "for free" without dropping packets that have traversed the
> bottleneck. I'm firmly in favour of the current setup
Agreed. I was going to provide test results of aggressive UDP vs TCP with and without the change, but I’m seeing some odd behavior with UDP that I’ll investigate more and start in a separate thread if needed. :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-04 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.1788.1551352661.3538.cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2019-03-01 10:52 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-01 11:01 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-03-01 11:55 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-01 14:40 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-03-01 16:43 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-02 3:02 ` George Amanakis
2019-03-02 4:47 ` George Amanakis
2019-03-02 10:20 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-03 7:19 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-03 9:53 ` Sebastian Moeller
2019-03-03 9:58 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-03 11:26 ` Sebastian Moeller
2019-03-03 12:13 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-03 12:53 ` Sebastian Moeller
2019-03-03 16:07 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-03 16:10 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-03 16:35 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-03 16:40 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-03 18:48 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-03 19:03 ` gamanakis
2019-03-03 19:49 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-04 2:55 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-03-04 3:17 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-04 4:22 ` Ryan Mounce
2019-03-04 8:27 ` Pete Heist [this message]
2019-03-04 13:17 ` Pete Heist
2019-03-04 14:36 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-03-03 12:06 ` Pete Heist
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E937ABB3-E0AA-4BE3-998F-A059051B7863@heistp.net \
--to=pete@heistp.net \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=ryan@mounce.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox