From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com
	[74.125.82.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 456D2208AC5;
	Tue,  8 May 2012 22:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wejx9 with SMTP id x9so8413315wej.16
	for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 08 May 2012 22:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date
	:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=TzgyXGXGTeT0Av8Vv+jge7u8iU6B0aldZZxhFF1KEXs=;
	b=wWSBpioEQvmVTVtklMVOMMdaFCiRV+KtxtnTOBACFndfmZYLJrskBAH1VhVEhAMzvb
	UBxrmE+8/RToKlRiJbSfXu731/k75Rl0p8cQKLJUiyy+dit7rsgIJAvOcn76fKeQYzwd
	Qa0vTWZzGYs1nLUgNHvZsuAI4I4b7VPM5mzpzee2n3CBvFplBeAEBF521WhUM8lgMYSw
	amrhcNeyIh7UdX61G1g0SkaFFF1pV4LkRZTTsp7j5Bes6jh3ldPAmJTjA+HLzRJbVUgl
	R19qbtzMnmp+azCbWGKKw0+k2fLOeRSDkZdEtTkrYi39QmrqqLLGdxum4kCbR7Jekh+X
	TWqA==
Received: by 10.180.88.67 with SMTP id be3mr50791633wib.20.1336542021959;
	Tue, 08 May 2012 22:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.30.42.18] (122.237.66.86.rev.sfr.net. [86.66.237.122])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k6sm34156757wiy.7.2012.05.08.22.40.20
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 May 2012 22:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FA9FDC0.9010600@superduper.net>
References: <CAA93jw7EUSf-NAg9q6oxRms5LQopO-VseYUtXAyCkUi=Yitx-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FA9FDC0.9010600@superduper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 07:40:18 +0200
Message-ID: <1336542018.3752.3235.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Codel] [Bloat] The challenge
X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions <codel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/codel>
List-Post: <mailto:codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 05:40:24 -0000

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 22:16 -0700, Simon Barber wrote:
> One question now remains - will codel AQM be sufficient on it's own in 
> getting delays down to levels that users are happy with for the common 
> latency sensitive interactive traffic - VoIP, gaming and Skype for 
> example - or are the further reductions that can be had with traffic 
> classification and smart queuing algorithms necessary? The nicest part 
> about codel on it's own is that it works on opaque packets - it will 
> handle VPNs and traffic within them nicely. It gets away from all the 
> complexity required to classify traffic in a world where traffic is 
> often trying to hide.

It all depends on the requirements you have.

To me, CoDel is a RED replacement, because it provides something easier
to deploy (no knobs). So it wont solve by itself cases where you want
something that could not be done by a single RED queue.

I like to see Codel as a basic unit, to replace RED (or pfifo if some
fools still use this for whatever reasons) in a tree involving
classifiers and FQ.