Hi David,
> > - low latency AND high throughput (compared to low latency OR high > > throughput for drop based congestion controllers) > > I think that you are overstating things when you say that without ECN you > are forced to choose between low latency OR high throughput. that doesn't > match what people are reporting when they use simple fq_codel without ECN I disagree. At the least when you are using TCP, a drop will cause head-of-line blocking on the receiver, for at least 1 RTT; Agreed, there are ways to mitigate this (FEC-encoded transports). But the "OR" is exactly the correct description here: FEC has inheritent overhead thus reduced bandwidth, and loss-recovery suffers from head-of-line blocking, thus higher latency (to the application, where it actually matters). FQ-Codel runs with high bandwidth, but the drops induce latency in the end-hosts nevertheless... Thus FQ-Codel with ECN would still be more effective than without ECN. Richard _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
