From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) (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 7FEA821F1E8 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j10so3955568qcx.17 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=MGzEsn912b+O1FwUq6AkCSmhJ6NN75cp8f40aZ8NTk0=; b=HRfuZYu5x8I3Isi02fnMvVRVoo/d8t82ZrFhlYaVSmxebdXmvgYoCjaPS53enUA0cP ueiRg17vb4AOrrHBqd2aLlCDCNVMFWBaE7JQyDRa1hb1YXTru8wkx2quVknggAAOzgc+ 4tkOlfN/3So+13wZJuqtP44WZHN1BiG1pO5J7Q5ItI1/NBkt4B26Hu01Jj4qMgLmze2f AGOUNryX87g82z/P2ZDBO9uXK3mLzqB8TGGPUKpZCOhLrXhsSwIk2tuCxsJ0SK+Ncjif n9ZOQbFQVJ4TP+Z6FCV75Ag6EdQkUzrNEV2FhW4qlITz9baSThAK3BDT8pVJfjrPCG/A ueLQ== X-Received: by 10.224.60.133 with SMTP id p5mr29256992qah.101.1373488934477; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: winstein@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.93.2 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:41:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Keith Winstein Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:41:33 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7JyqV8HiRC6PCtQ75xA8s9Ky54E Message-ID: To: Jim Gettys Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d7ee0ae4bb04e12e509d Cc: "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Codel] sprout 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: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:42:15 -0000 --001a11c3d7ee0ae4bb04e12e509d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > Did you compare with fq_codel? None of us (Van included) advocate CoDel > by itself. > Hi Jim, In our evaluation there's only one flow over the queue (in each direction) -- the videoconference. So, yes. In the upcoming paper where we try and come up with the best end-to-end schemes for multiuser traffic, we compare against Cubic-over-sfqCoDel ( http://www.pollere.net/Txtdocs/sfqcodel.cc). Cheers, Keith --001a11c3d7ee0ae4bb04e12e509d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>= wrote:
Did= you compare with fq_codel? =A0None of us (Van included) advocate CoDel by = itself.

Hi Jim,

<= /div>
In our evaluation there's only one flow over the queue (in each di= rection) -- the videoconference. So, yes.

In the u= pcoming paper where we try and come up with the best end-to-end schemes for= multiuser traffic, we compare against Cubic-over-sfqCoDel (http://www.pollere.net/Txtdocs/sfqc= odel.cc).

Cheers,
Keith
--001a11c3d7ee0ae4bb04e12e509d--