From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC2D21F19C for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:44:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1772016D for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:48:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 4A6A0636C7; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:43:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C453636C3 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:43:42 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: cerowrt-devel X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] v6 vs v4 X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 02:44:27 -0000 Is there any reason I should expect fq_codel to work less well when the elephant flow is (native) v6 rather than v4? I started a 1.6G rsync over ssh from my home to office at noon today. Subsquently, the ogg/mp3 streaming (over http port 81) that I usually do to play music at work became very poor. It wasn't consistently bad. Or I'm hitting port-22 priority vs port-81 best effort? -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video then sign the petition.