From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-x22c.google.com (mail-la0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22c]) (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 D18B121F418; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagg8 with SMTP id g8so98883947lag.1; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:34:27 -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=+6MDFv+buklwBhOZuFhbvXf1WZf9n5qXAnieNrLv8Ig=; b=TrV2httiaJPAZ7Y/YhQ8ka3tkRZeZTlpN0qILkSMytaK2CF17Rw74+iPZCUmpgxv+3 +NcB1R2Olhckf0R2GL2rSY0cYFSR6bE3e8CZIH367q/W7RfBDt0bkoYl8jXQzV46Le6V 46n6dHR1tDSn+A9ZYa/nJwGa2Nfg728NK7ifawEjFebA0dSeATlWivnNLTCHQEhdGMi9 JbiVoH88GrW0GJhvqS4x+VqqCxp/THN9AAkzGUiIr4yjNqGam6/e3YFbRC3ddov3Ft57 XHtih2VJlp4zUgrXmNAxyS/lzO6I93j7ycfihfTviyuowXrO+C8r7AYB+WOLdzg+r+Fo e+pw== X-Received: by 10.112.12.196 with SMTP id a4mr75175412lbc.8.1426898067660; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:34:27 -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 h7sm1234451lbj.29.2015.03.20.17.34.25 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:34:26 -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 02:34:23 +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 00:34:58 -0000 > 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 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. - Jonathan Morton