From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6707A3B2A4; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 13:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:40:53 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1552844458; bh=CfWVvr9TvdbIjH87KxH0j1rd3eX/5Xz9/zKD62r20Xs=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From:From; b=DNedCrBf3VpnTYitUSkpQqholWoctKbJTsf8Ynmbwlafug0+ziwK2vDBRctJ92FCG NmI29VGpy4cXwodTb5/HerCLax7D/9RClfRVRo9gg2a3BJVheNo7UIbm2JyupfTpY9 3ACA/NBL+ZjnNqxOeJY/vrkTw0rf/tYsfJSUxW0H3h2Ra/6mV3NXDY82eUjVF7S7+k g1KvEj9MhtFx647EF8038ylENmv2zAYZpXVg/1B+1V3i+2XBWuMhN68PHMpZshZyo5 5Q8HdTqGvhmfnKAfjYRmlBkelspS6+Wk4Gq4xaHYclS621QxPB1OYbwit8y6YZzAMG kUXecKb+qWYcQ== In-Reply-To: References: <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> <27FA673A-2C4C-4652-943F-33FAA1CF1E83@gmx.de> <1552669283.555112988@apps.rackspace.com> <7029DA80-8B83-4775-8261-A4ADD2CF34C7@akamai.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net, Loganaden Velvindron , Mikael Abrahamsson CC: "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <56E1C164-5CE5-4924-8A76-258086061508@toke.dk> Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:40:59 -0000 On 17 March 2019 18:37:27 CET, Loganaden Velvindron wrote: >On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Mikael Abrahamsson >wrote: >> >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote: >> >> > Granted, it still remains to be seen whether SCE in practice can >match >> > the results of L4S, and L4S was here first=2E But it seems to me L4S >comes >> > with some problems that have not yet been examined, and that are >nicely >> > dodged by a SCE-based approach=2E >> >> I'm actually not that interested in an academic competition about >what >> solution gives the ultimate "best" outcome in simulation or in a lab=2E >> >> I am interested in good enough solutions that are actually deployable >and >> will get deployed, and doesn't have any pathological behaviour when >it >> comes to legacy traffic=2E >> >> Right now the Internet is full of deep FIFOs and they're not going >away, >> and they're not getting FQ_CODEL or CAKE=2E >> >> CAKE/FQ_CODEL is nice, but it's not being deployed at the typical >> congestion points we have in real life=2E These devices would have a >much >> easier time getting PIE or even RED, if it was just implemented=2E >> > >is there an open source implementation of PIE which is close to what >is used by the DOCSIS modems ? Yup=2E sch_pie in the Linux kernel=2E I believe Dave originally helped the= Cisco people get it upstream=2E=2E=2E There's even an out of tree fq_pie somewhere=2E Don't have the link handy= =2E -Toke > >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm=2Epp=2Ese >> _______________________________________________ >> Ecn-sane mailing list >> Ecn-sane@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/ecn-sane >_______________________________________________ >Ecn-sane mailing list >Ecn-sane@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/ecn-sane