From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210333CB46 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:14:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BBDFDB2; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:14:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1563804862; bh=3wTU3ePmhFixzFjcd0elqA3Uk4kAx5N4PzV84LEBD/8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:From; b=KPr3uBeQs1B1fIOhTyKjkIfPrfC7nxJHjybriZItzJkg1MeIQjluBlV8ufFOS+yW+ o8mfOpHPFBH7ir32RWw4r5lT891mRlaI8wesx3KBb1C0HGiBWJeG4DX1EDy/888Iqu xN6cpoPWwDp9bbK1Q8gm9RM6yvti/gILZUZ0OVQI= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA156B1; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:14:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:14:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "tsvwg@ietf.org" Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: [Ecn-sane] is FQ actually widely deployed? 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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:14:24 -0000 On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Dave Taht wrote: > In particular conflating "low latency" really confounds the subject > matter, and has for years. FQ gives "low latency" for the vast > majority of flows running below their fair share. L4S promises "low My observations from the business is that FQ just isn't a thing, in reality. I run CAKE myself here on my OpenWrt box and it works great, but I have yet to find a commercially available box used by ISPs or something that is a big-seller in electronics stores that use FQ_anything, or is even flow aware when it comes to forwarding. I have heard nothing about FQ being implemented in packet accelerators. I do hear about people wanting to turn on things that control delay/buffer fill, but this is still single queue with no flow-aware anything. Do we have numbers on how much FQ is actually out there? If we don't, can we measure it? Anyone know of devices shipping or being designed that does FQ of some kind? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se