[Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

On 17 March 2019 18:37:27 CET, Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden at gmail.com> wrote:
>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 ?

Yup. sch_pie in the Linux kernel. I believe Dave originally helped the Cisco people get it upstream...

There's even an out of tree fq_pie somewhere. Don't have the link handy.

-Toke

>
>> --
>> 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
>_______________________________________________
>Ecn-sane mailing list
>Ecn-sane at lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane