Re: [Cake] Cake on LEDE - package maintainer required

[Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>]

On 13/06/2017 23:02, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:41:05 +0100
> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This email finds me looking for a volunteer/s to take over the ownership 
>> of the cake qdisc module package in LEDE.
>>
>> It's not particularly onerous, in essence making sure the package points 
>> at the git commit considered 'stable'.
>>
>> In theory there's a 'matching' user space patch for 'tc' in the 
>> 'iproute2' package to ensure it agrees with the kernel space qdisc.
>>
>> My advice is for everyone to take a step back very quickly...as the last 
>> person left forward of the line will get it ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Kevin

Not sure if this is aimed at me specifically, however I shall give a
personal, from the heart and from my perspective, full of my opinion, reply.

> 
> I will keeping asking the questions.

They're good questions.

> If it works and has value, why is it not upstream?

It works and has value to me, specifically in the NAT aware per internal
host fairness on both ingress & egress.  It is not upstream because the
person who really understands how it works hasn't pushed it upstream.

If I were in that person's position, I know I'd not be looking forward
to the process of trying to do so, but then I'm somewhat 'burnt out'
from similar processes of trying to get some sensible improvements into
some user space code.

> If is not upstream, does it still matter?

To me, yes, because it's the only fair queueing AQM of which I'm aware
that'll have a go at per-IP fairness all in one easily configurable box.

KDB