> 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 ?
I do not know if it is close to the DOCSIS modems, but FreeBSD has PIE implemented /usr/src/sys/netpfil/ipfw/dn_aqm_pie.c /usr/src/sys/netpfil/ipfw/dn_aqm_pie.h /usr/src/sys/netpfil/ipfw/dn_sched_fq_pie.c > > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat