Re: [Codel] [RFC PATCH] codel: ecn mark at target

[Andrew McGregor <andrewmcgr@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1687 bytes --]

Well, thanks Eric for trying it.

Hmm.  How was I that wrong?  Because I was supporting that idea.

Time to think.

On 4/08/2012, at 2:53 PM, Kathleen Nichols <nichols@pollere.com> wrote:

> 
> 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 <dave.taht@bufferbloat.net>
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Codel mailing list
> Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2330 bytes --]