On Sun, 2012-06-24 at 22:00 -0700, Dave Täht wrote: > From: Dave Taht <[email protected]> > > ECN was not part of the original codel design and adding support > for it revealed problems in two areas. 1) ECN can be gamed. > 2) Dropping packets under overload more rapidly frees up > bandwidth than marking packets. > > Two possible scenarios of use - on egress from a network, > ecn_target could be set low, to drop more often, to > ensure lowest latency for other packets. > > On ingress, it could be set high to mark packets more often, > to lower data loss while still signalling the end application > that bandwidth is a problem. > > ecn_target is not engaged until after codel enters a dropping > state overall.
I would suggest 'drop_above' instead of ecn_target, since its quite different than the 'target' (And dont display/output it if ecn is not set, no need to confuse users who didn't enable ecn on CoDel) _______________________________________________ Codel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
