From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) (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 02D723CB35 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 03:27:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id f3so1234544wmj.4 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 00:27:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QPiRKDnhAxEAXDMlnxLXNXLbQJHLoKbkvdc9qEEqce0=; b=UoMx5fbI4SmEseUpDcyiVMmfUrZ/wNbaL3SqR6TyyfzMYeB9WhenUFPEBJ6bMPJUNz TLKLQDRBjIi67zQzxMofqTakbgJIjrdcAFTvo+hYk9RYBIMUyyPUE/dnVe8yjMqcAbQW Tr3aYvXnWCJKuRuJjQewKEbIXPIj7tTCQ0Vy8VopXq+EK+MEHeRgwTbQj9JEi9cKCzsp IGl7thlTyBd/rB6bvLGntXZ2Ejinn4lggWIlBiJcv7wgvvnN/xCBjMgTCwW9Jd68uY5X dHDYImJ+/lpMvq+6l0+WY6qvJYn+Q/k1gvILtKwzvlg5bX67YvxzTpeu63butp3OYgxv yWnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QPiRKDnhAxEAXDMlnxLXNXLbQJHLoKbkvdc9qEEqce0=; b=Iw6RO35T/ttfHDlcbRp9CmFbL0YDRcSWPETWRExI1tPrIXCVL1huhsaEEpMWBujwEw r9E0Lqy+cQGvSI+cnF9YWocQpao/ziTp4w8YxtdRiEefprzokOmPtO4lLLQiNNjh0/GF pzPK4jNP10UHjOWAKAO5I4PMaZGtvg7TvyZM40v3hnjyerYQknCJ17QJZIatrfcvcGoq pgXcTzN3JV8WBhkmHhfkhGEqU8ryGtDT/0A2ymY8V5hq6wfIhIedEIgu13Vy6jHZAIkF qRIUFwR0eMq0qAOElPMCIUY5YjOH4G3wwdRaXWOrb1ptW/BwDDiGLGkUoR7iwjhWMYe3 fKtA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVkvWA1eRoic9DiwMlQry5XZy5aUwaOYkHK38qkhb/PDmpT65pI Iige0PwvZRwhRgCFziD9TnsIuQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZbhGD+vL7HZsK75/umep1ncAv7Qg8nel+YVK+ZFIOZv9PLU5J+Jnp74uFSQN9RvnKqTM1sMQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:8086:: with SMTP id b128mr10997877wmd.117.1551688046011; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 00:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from tron.luk.heistp.net (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t14sm4752408wrr.49.2019.03.04.00.27.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Mar 2019 00:27:25 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:27:23 +0100 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen_via_Cake?= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <72193310-7502-47B8-9554-7F8F9FA23204@heistp.net> <874l8mn9iy.fsf@toke.dk> <417E17B2-17F7-4106-A92D-C5B5AC41D808@gmx.de> <5CC769AC-AD0C-40E8-BFCA-6AD2A8162FFC@gmail.com> <49A8FB42-EC0B-41B7-8CE4-888DF3C2A88D@gmx.de> <542D3BC3-317A-4F3E-A5B6-16FF678DDFAC@gmail.com> <5C8177FD-2605-4CDD-9AA2-F0E5AF9C779B@heistp.net> <1C81557C-2FD5-4C48-BC17-F9E841D08097@gmail.com> <511C22FF-64A5-46CA-BFB9-4EA350B76122@gmail.com> <9746402E-41EA-43F9-AAE6-53C038EABFFF@heistp.net> <000001d4d1f3$c5599eb0$500cdc10$@gmail.com> To: Ryan Mounce X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Cake] Upstream submission of dual-mode fairness patch 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: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:27:27 -0000 > On Mar 4, 2019, at 5:22 AM, Ryan Mounce wrote: >=20 > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 13:47, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >>=20 >>> On 4 Mar, 2019, at 4:55 am, Georgios Amanakis = wrote: >>>=20 >>> =E2=80=A6the fairness logic wouldn't account for that "ingress = traffic" and would yield fairer results. >>=20 >> 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=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99m seeing some odd behavior = with UDP that I=E2=80=99ll investigate more and start in a separate = thread if needed. :)