weirdly enough, my gmail account has not received anything from netdev since oct 11.
yes, i think fq_codel will be better, and even the proposed too-shallow threshold will make for less of a dent on the internet. still... I do wish I'd seen this earlier. On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:31 PM Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > -- > > Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw > > > > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > > _______________________________________________ > > Cake mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake > -- Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
