From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC833B29E; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 05:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id AAAF5AF; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:34:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1549276458; bh=QDAiAt2CWasoRQm/SXz1UMcpKAEpn7TveWr8mq+K+co=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=H3G85gSpN8zkW/U8mhoFF4kjsNtp22RnIcnBCVo9a8jUvGwhm8vw4Zuck7s841CmQ KwKJpkeUPQt/AZCdQmfcW0rUZOupfyuJxDD/vKw2zLQb+dKPj5MvWBQ+qlRCTx4Kzo LXHWE46mzk0a2L7uw3JpA2eP8+3Baw+9mXXl96LE= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AF39F; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:34:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:34:18 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: Dave Taht , Cake List , cerowrt-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1549233729.17269312@apps.rackspace.com> <87k1ig6nwd.fsf@taht.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Cake] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-06 is in last call X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 10:34:20 -0000 On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote: >> The problem with CAKE/FQ and background traffic is that it can't tell if >> there is congestion or not, and things like LEDBAT can't backoff and try >> to avoid causing congestion. So your previous email about allowing some >> congestion to take place on LE would be good as then protocols that try to >> avoid causing congestion would have a way to do so. > > I do not like that the standard allows for total starvation. I would > prefer it had a minimum of 5%. I fully agree, and that would work even if all LE traffic was put into single queue with 5% of total bw, and even if that had a 1 second FIFO with tail drop. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se