[Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104
Loganaden Velvindron
loganaden at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 13:37:27 EDT 2019
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote:
>
> > Granted, it still remains to be seen whether SCE in practice can match
> > the results of L4S, and L4S was here first. But it seems to me L4S comes
> > with some problems that have not yet been examined, and that are nicely
> > dodged by a SCE-based approach.
>
> I'm actually not that interested in an academic competition about what
> solution gives the ultimate "best" outcome in simulation or in a lab.
>
> I am interested in good enough solutions that are actually deployable and
> will get deployed, and doesn't have any pathological behaviour when it
> comes to legacy traffic.
>
> Right now the Internet is full of deep FIFOs and they're not going away,
> and they're not getting FQ_CODEL or CAKE.
>
> CAKE/FQ_CODEL is nice, but it's not being deployed at the typical
> congestion points we have in real life. These devices would have a much
> easier time getting PIE or even RED, if it was just implemented.
>
is there an open source implementation of PIE which is close to what
is used by the DOCSIS modems ?
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
> _______________________________________________
> Ecn-sane mailing list
> Ecn-sane at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
More information about the Ecn-sane
mailing list