From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0468F21F417;
	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100])
	by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id
	t2L0cQLS019135; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:38:26 -0800
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D89D7FB2-B0BD-48B0-B000-00507D1E44CB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503201736160.22474@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <CAJq5cE1UFgt6fpLxRH7m3VFUpziGZm9OLCCNFQ93QemH00CHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1426773234.362612992@apps.rackspace.com>
	<CAA93jw5c_qzqPQdpnUPXi_QwuRwAjVEVdGUG02LBFfj2fs91LQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D1309C0B.FD59F%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
	<CAGhGL2DjauqAdjxRmgU1sBEMs89YNvseo3XDt5QTn8x1wLFSCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D131A022.FD6D9%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
	<CA35CD7C-A717-4DCE-ADE6-0B81E1DCAB97@ifi.uio.no>
	<2E2D6622-1791-4CBB-856E-CE7BA39D99E0@gmail.com>
	<4C566C48-769A-4AC9-910F-B852EBF4B7A8@ifi.uio.no>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1503201655260.22474@nftneq.ynat.uz>
	<20150321001306.GA23642@sesse.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1503201716420.22474@nftneq.ynat.uz>
	<D89D7FB2-B0BD-48B0-B000-00507D1E44CB@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="680960-82316438-1426898306=:22474"
Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>,
	"cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
	<cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>,
	bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
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
	<cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:39:03 -0000

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--680960-82316438-1426898306=:22474
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Sat, 21 Mar 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote:

>> On 21 Mar, 2015, at 02:25, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>>
>> As I said, there are two possibilities
>>
>> 1. if you mark packets sooner than you would drop them, advantage non-ECN
>>
>> 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’t matter to other traffic - it just turns the faker’s allocation of queue into a dumb, non-AQM one.  No problem.

so if every flow is isolated so that what it generates has no effect on any 
other traffic, what value does ECN provide?

and how do you decide what the fair allocation of bandwidth is between all the 
threads?

David Lang
--680960-82316438-1426898306=:22474--