[Ecn-sane] [Cake] l4s kernel submission

[Sebastian Moeller]

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