On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@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: swm...@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > ecn-s...@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat