From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (lang.hm [66.167.227.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F01743B2A4 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:20:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlang-laptop ([10.2.0.122]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id uB9EKlEt004617; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:20:47 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:20:47 -0800 (PST) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: Jeremy Harris cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <9BA0F7D8-5A25-4033-A101-38BF001B74EB@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.17 (DEB 179 2016-10-28) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Software rate limiting with fq_codel for point-to-point WiFi backhaul links X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 14:20:50 -0000 On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 09/12/16 13:41, David Lang wrote: >> The whole mess of estimating bandwidth and throttling to keep below that >> estimate is only needed when the device(s) that you have control over >> are not the ones directly adjacent to the bottleneck. > > Would you be better-off if the bottleneck did CE-marking and you used > ECN-capable protocols and ECN-enabled endpoint network stacks? I don't think it would be nearly as good. As I understand it, you would need ECN support on every device in the path for it to work at all. David Lang