[Cake] [lede-project/source] Add support for cake qdisc (#72)
kevin at darbyshire-bryant.me.uk
Wed Jun 1 09:09:48 EDT 2016
On 01/06/16 13:25, Benjamin Cronce wrote:
> I'm just going to ask two questions just to reflect on
> 1) Ideally, regardless of platform, should an AQM or scheduler have the
> responsibility of changing anything other than ECN?
> 2) Should you be deciding the responsibility of CAKE based on the
> implementation of the platform (IP Tables, not IPTables, etc) or
> implementing the ideal solution?
> Ideals can be bad if overly zealous, but it's a slippery slope to the
> anti-ideal every time you give up an ideal for practical reasons. I
> always ask myself, what is the perfect solution, can it be done, and
> what are the trade-offs if it cannot be. Single point of responsibility
> is one of those ideals.
Thank you, that has really helped clarify my thinking. I'm definitely
happy for it to go. Based on the above it should never have got in!
I believe that Dave's concerns can be addressed by iptables rules (as
would have to be done with other qdiscs anyway)
Jonathan, would you like me to merge those pull requests to remove
'wash' or do you have a better way of implementing? I'm less worried
about backwards/forwards compatibility because as as far as I'm
concerned cake has never been 'released'. I'm not so much a fan of
linux's backporting of API changes either!
More information about the Cake