On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
+10



-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://www.bufferbloat.net