[Codel] The challenge

[Kathleen Nichols]

On 5/8/12 6:04 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> Both the acm queue article and jim's blog entry this morning were way
> above mensa's standards.

But, omg, we are not saying this will solve everything.  And it's not
supposed
to be a scholarly paper, but a proposed solution to a real problem. Guess
Dave and Eric will let us know how real it is.

We are still tweaking to make sure the streamlined code does what the
old simulator code does. Should be a small update shortly.

> 
> Nobody has attempted to explain the elegant simplicity of the
> algorithm itself in the inverse sqrt however!  I have a good grip on
> it, and am trying, but can barely explain it to myself. Anyone else
> care to dig through the codel code and try to put it into english?

The reason I referenced our ancient unpublished work on this in additon to
Matt Mathis's paper is that Van had some nice pictures and explanations in
there.

> 
> Nice bit in ReadWrite News:
> 
> http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/05/good-news-for-solving-bufferbloat-codel-provides-no-knobs-solution.php
> 
> Bob Cringley lays down the challenge for us here on the bloat list,
> and details the opportunity.
> 
> http://www.cringely.com/2012/05/beginning-of-the-end-for-bufferbloat/
> 
> He closes with:
> 
> "My advice to Cisco, Netgear, D-Link and others is that this could be
> an important moment in their businesses if they choose to approach it
> correctly. It’s a chance to get all of us to buy new routers, perhaps
> new everything. Think of the music industry bonanza when we all
> shifted our record libraries from vinyl to CDs. It could be the same
> for networking equipment. But for that to happen the vendors have to
> finally acknowledge bufferbloat and use their marketing dollars to
> teach us all why we should upgrade ASAP. Everybody would win.
> 
> Take our money, please."
> 
> With the cerowrt project, at least, I've hoped to make that shift
> possible, and to some extent... happen.
> 
> We have *working code*, and *proof of concept*. What's next? Where do
> we go from here?
>