From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-x233.google.com (mail-la0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 972CA21F418; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ladw1 with SMTP id w1so98900862lad.0; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:44:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=w//ArbMCMUyOCkQ7/atgDiLyUDA+M4SwOAaWOrflFXI=; b=j9sEClnOw5GaiiUABNCgn9IXmyZciXcyKOVnAr2uQYHdTh+q3NADdA4Xk232//PtXv /7Y1cyq4I3vw5/JiVxDknTMTfqge5H0b2l7wQQ4+c/PpRaVDvxIfZAK5p1OfMHRnsNge D+UHDPTqH6G5PBSeLKaT9+BJ+ahdzepH6qV+99zKzdmcAlm4hwnCCTnEE62IH24drq6h ALVpA1Rah4nB06oHncoADCgrGhsEOFXEakHTlq1WYWYtDZgx/alI977fJkMNUV/Hy2R9 Z8zvnC5di4rjVfmHAr4wxwcubmcpdg7TynoANlhGuXgKGBmaxjwe3wy8U6eqIhyYcvOV 79OA== X-Received: by 10.112.161.66 with SMTP id xq2mr75193751lbb.103.1426898642228; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (188-67-157-19.bb.dnainternet.fi. [188.67.157.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pd1sm1239695lbc.9.2015.03.20.17.44.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 02:43:58 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1426773234.362612992@apps.rackspace.com> <2E2D6622-1791-4CBB-856E-CE7BA39D99E0@gmail.com> <4C566C48-769A-4AC9-910F-B852EBF4B7A8@ifi.uio.no> <20150321001306.GA23642@sesse.net> To: David Lang X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Michael Welzl , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation? 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: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:44:33 -0000 > On 21 Mar, 2015, at 02:38, David Lang wrote: >=20 > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote: >=20 >>> On 21 Mar, 2015, at 02:25, David Lang wrote: >>>=20 >>> As I said, there are two possibilities >>>=20 >>> 1. if you mark packets sooner than you would drop them, advantage = non-ECN >>>=20 >>> 2. if you mark packets and don't drop them until higher levels, = advantage ECN, and big advantage to fake ECN >>=20 >> 3: if you have flow isolation with = drop-from-longest-queue-on-overflow, faking ECN doesn=E2=80=99t matter = to other traffic - it just turns the faker=E2=80=99s allocation of queue = into a dumb, non-AQM one. No problem. >=20 > so if every flow is isolated so that what it generates has no effect = on any other traffic, what value does ECN provide? A *genuine* ECN flow benefits from reduced packet loss and smoother = progress, because the AQM can signal congestion to it without dropping. > and how do you decide what the fair allocation of bandwidth is between = all the threads? Using DRR. This is what fq_codel does already, as it happens. As does = cake. In other words, the last half-dozen posts have been an argument about a = solved problem. - Jonathan Morton