From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) (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 8BDF6202295 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 14:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c-24-4-217-203.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.4.217.203] helo=kmn.local) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SxmHW-000LZY-5k; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 21:53:10 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 24.4.217.203 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+59Gb7kY3YFUHoBWwV5JcfDt2SRyFkrR4= Message-ID: <501D99C4.20902@pollere.com> Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:53:08 -0700 From: Kathleen Nichols User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <1344048299-26267-1-git-send-email-dave.taht@bufferbloat.net> <1344062738.9299.1453.camel@edumazet-glaptop> In-Reply-To: <1344062738.9299.1453.camel@edumazet-glaptop> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Codel] [RFC PATCH] codel: ecn mark at target X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 21:53:12 -0000 Yes, why would a single delay of more than target be considered as a reason to take action? I thought Van did a very nice job of explaining this last Monday. On 8/3/12 11:45 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 19:44 -0700, Dave Täht wrote: >> From: Dave Taht >> >> The consensus at ietf was that ecn marking should start at >> target, and then the results fed into the codel drop scheduler. >> >> While I agree with the latter, I feel that waiting an interval >> before starting to mark will be more in-tune with the concept >> of a sojourn time, and lead to better utilization. >> >> As I am outnumbered and outgunned, do it at target. > > Well, thats a huge way to favor non ECN flows against ECN flows. > > Marking _all_ ECN enabled packets just because last packet sent had a > sojourn time above target is going to throttle ECN flows and let non ECN > flows going full speed and take whole bandwidth. > > Doing so is a nice way to keep users switching to ECN one day. > > IETF could just say : ECN is doomed, forget about it, dont even try. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Codel mailing list > Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel >