[Cerowrt-devel] [Cake] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-06 is in last call
dave.taht at gmail.com
Mon Feb 4 05:40:37 EST 2019
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:34 AM Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> The problem with CAKE/FQ and background traffic is that it can't tell if
> >> there is congestion or not, and things like LEDBAT can't backoff and try
> >> to avoid causing congestion. So your previous email about allowing some
> >> congestion to take place on LE would be good as then protocols that try to
> >> avoid causing congestion would have a way to do so.
> > I do not like that the standard allows for total starvation. I would
> > prefer it had a minimum of 5%.
> I fully agree, and that would work even if all LE traffic was put into
> single queue with 5% of total bw, and even if that had a 1 second FIFO
> with tail drop.
We don't quite agree.
"Every application has the right to one packet in the network" - John Nagle
Cake adheres to that as closely as possible, yet still keeps latency
low for all applications background, priority or best effort. fq_codel
doesn't, which leads to shorter queue lengths when ECN is in heavy
use. I wish cake would more aggressively drop ECN packets.
Sadly cake's uptake is a bit slow, as it is a bit slow.
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
More information about the Cerowrt-devel