Hi Dave, all,
message lost on my inbox -- no mean to get down to 0-latency in this
queue :/
I just react on a point
I would say that any technology that automatically reduces mean
latency reduces the need to manage mean latency.
sure, reducing latency (e.g.LEDBAT) is better than
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On May 24, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I don't understand the difference between AF1 and CS1. Please elaborate.
RFC 2597: any AF class (there are four rate-based classes, named AFx) has three
different quanta
OK - so this is within ISP networks. Could this be avoided by mapping
the DSCPs on entry and exit of their network? Do you know about CS1
within ISP networks? Or any impact at the edge?
Simon
On 5/24/2015 11:33 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015, Simon Barber wrote:
My
Hi Mikael,
I can't find reference to DSCP 10 or 000110, where are they defined?
I know the title 'assured forwarding' seems to imply better than best
effort, but I think this is a mistake for AF1 - which seems to be
recommended for bulk traffic that is not latency sensitive. You can't
On Sun, 24 May 2015, Simon Barber wrote:
Hi Mikael,
I can't find reference to DSCP 10 or 000110, where are they defined?
What do you mean? I mapped the drop probability bits to BE and suggested
this might be used.
I know the title 'assured forwarding' seems to imply better than best
I do like the idea of introducting a new 'low priority' code point, were
the top 3 bits are 0, so that legacy equipment that makes the wrong
interpretation (higher priority) treats the traffic as BE. There is a
mess of different interpretations out there, and the downside would be
legacy
On May 24, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Hi Roland,
My recent attention to DSCP has come from looking at what correct mappings to
802.1D (now 802.1Q) would be. I have also run across a couple of comments
that legacy IP Precedence maps CS1 - higher priority
On Sun, 24 May 2015, Simon Barber wrote:
OK - so this is within ISP networks. Could this be avoided by mapping
the DSCPs on entry and exit of their network? Do you know about CS1
within ISP networks? Or any impact at the edge?
I don't understand the difference between AF1 and CS1. Please
Hi all,
quick comment on ledbat. The main use case for bitTorrent was huge buffers in
home routers (where in fact the configuration could be changed by the user but
usually the user does not know what to do and just keeps the default config and
complains about bitTorrent disturbing Skype
On 5/18/2015 10:00 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
LEDBAT was probably my first concern and area of research before
entering this project full time. I *knew* we were going to break
ledbat, but the two questions were: how badly? (ans: pretty badly) and
did it matter? (not that much, compared to saving
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
On 5/18/2015 10:00 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
LEDBAT was probably my first concern and area of research before entering
this project full time. I *knew* we were going to break ledbat, but the two
questions were: how badly?
On May 18, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Shortly, our investigation confirms the negative interference: while AQM
fixes the bufferbloat, it destroys the relative priority among Cc protocols.
I think I would phrase that a little differently.
The concept of
Thank you Mikeal, these are useful observations about the choice of exact
DSCP value and various potential impacts. I agree that ultimately without
operator agreement non of this matters. I do think that an important step
towards garnering that operator agreement is to have the concerns clearly
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 May, 2015, at 18:27, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Apparently a significant chunk of bittorrent traffic and Windows updates use
these techniques to deprioritise their traffic. Widespread adoption
On 18 May, 2015, at 20:18, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Since dart I have basically come to the conclusion we need at least
one new diffserv priority class for scavaging traffic.
Scavenging traffic is, of course, the rationale behind assigning CS1 to the
background class (which has
Hi,
On 13.05.2015 at 07:01 Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On May 12, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net
wrote:
Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to
get agreement on a global low priority DSCP?
I’d suggest
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4594 4594
On 18 May, 2015, at 18:27, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Apparently a significant chunk of bittorrent traffic and Windows updates use
these techniques to deprioritise their traffic. Widespread adoption of AQM
will remove their ability to avoid impacting the network at peak
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Thank you Mikeal, these are useful observations about the choice of exact
DSCP value and various potential impacts. I agree that ultimately without
operator agreement non of this matters. I do think that an important step
On Mon, 18 May 2015, Simon Barber wrote:
Thank you Mikeal, these are useful observations about the choice of exact
DSCP value and various potential impacts. I agree that ultimately without
operator agreement non of this matters. I do think that an important step
towards garnering that
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Hi Wesley,
Thanks for considering my comments, and apologies for being so late in the
process - I've only recently been able to put time into this area, and I
understand it may be too late in the process to hack things
On 5/8/2015 11:42 PM, Simon Barber wrote:
I have a couple of concerns with the recommendations of this document as
they stand. Firstly - implementing AQM widely will reduce or even
possibly completely remove the ability to use delay based congestion
control in order to provide a low priority
Hi Wesley,
Thanks for considering my comments, and apologies for being so late in
the process - I've only recently been able to put time into this area,
and I understand it may be too late in the process to hack things in. I
replied to John with where I'm concerned with the current -11 text.
Hi John,
Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to get
agreement on a global low priority DSCP?
In the latest draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11
Top of page 16, line 3 it says AQM should be applied across the classes
or flows as well
On May 12, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to get agreement
on a global low priority DSCP?
I’d suggest
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4594
4594 Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes. J.
I have a couple of concerns with the recommendations of this document as
they stand. Firstly - implementing AQM widely will reduce or even
possibly completely remove the ability to use delay based congestion
control in order to provide a low priority or background service. I
think there should
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling
Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management
Authors :
26 matches
Mail list logo
