From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24D373CB35 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 02:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id CC2DBB4; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:21:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1563862887; bh=KLzd2H95HZTR/B+VNLNkdpAjrpPp6qy1NzMcKY+o1UM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=n4LnlwJLt/fNHjWot+LeXAzOVjLSKMqadKkOF1P8ZsZK0X5UkHXrxZwcfZCglN4Go OgrTlK6f27pNzSm0O2m3ghGPA8RteeHYEIrbh8EBFXqXNE4CsfpZjAPz2rk8Jl6HLP zGBFXnrOpFlAa7x/Bnc5nmuOqXN7H+jKk4w+XInI= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8901B2; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:21:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:21:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Sebastian Moeller cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Dave_T=E4ht?= , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Dave Taht , "tsvwg@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <7C7CE2C6-DCB2-4AEB-BB6B-44A707180D7A@gmx.de> Message-ID: References: <7C7CE2C6-DCB2-4AEB-BB6B-44A707180D7A@gmx.de> 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: Re: [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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 06:21:29 -0000 On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > That, and most other features the linux network stack offers (it > is easier ot be fast if you do less ;) ) I believe users need to > actively enable HW offloading, so shpould be in control whether they > want to trade in a ship-load of features for alloing their router to > punch well above its weight... On most HGW SOCs today the choice between HW offload on/off is 200 megabit/s unidirectional with large packets, or very close to wirespeed. Anyhow, my statement is that of the users today on the Internet, their congestion point will not have FQ enabled, and this for 99% of users. I don't see any trend that this is on the verge of drastically increasing either. The trend I am seeing is that delay control is being deployed by means of RED, buffer size caps (basically implementing adaptive buffers to only provide 10ms buffering until tail drop), PIE/CODEL or similar. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se