[Cake] l4s kernel submission

[Dave Taht]

weirdly enough, my gmail account has not received anything from netdev
since oct 11.

yes, i think fq_codel will be better, and even the proposed
too-shallow threshold will make for less of a dent on the internet.

still... I do wish I'd seen this earlier.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:31 PM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Which does not change the inconvenient fact that L4S does not work over the open internet. But I bet that fq_codel with a shaper is going to be hands down the better L4S AQM compared to DualQ... (thanks to its fq nature it can forego the whole "coupling" heuristic mess and side-step the whole massive unfairness issues, and keeping the known working codel law for non-ECT(1) traffic also compared to dualq's burts intolerabt PIE variant also seems like a step in the right direction).
> Then again it seems consequent given that the BBRv2 team seem to be on-board the L4S train; to put a somewhat positive spin (lipstick?) on this, I assume that the quality of the L4S engineering might improve...
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
> P.S.: Witnessing the L4S drama in the IETF makes me appreciate how comparatively clean and elegant sausages are made...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 2021, at 22:06, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211014175918.60188-3-eric.dumazet@gmail.com/
> >
> > --
> > Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw
> >
> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cake mailing list
> > Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
>


-- 
Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC