Well, thanks Eric for trying it. Hmm. How was I that wrong? Because I was supporting that idea.
Time to think. On 4/08/2012, at 2:53 PM, Kathleen Nichols <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, why would a single delay of more than target be considered > as a reason to take action? I thought Van did a very nice job of > explaining this last Monday. > > On 8/3/12 11:45 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 19:44 -0700, Dave Täht wrote: >>> From: Dave Taht <[email protected]> >>> >>> The consensus at ietf was that ecn marking should start at >>> target, and then the results fed into the codel drop scheduler. >>> >>> While I agree with the latter, I feel that waiting an interval >>> before starting to mark will be more in-tune with the concept >>> of a sojourn time, and lead to better utilization. >>> >>> As I am outnumbered and outgunned, do it at target. >> >> Well, thats a huge way to favor non ECN flows against ECN flows. >> >> Marking _all_ ECN enabled packets just because last packet sent had a >> sojourn time above target is going to throttle ECN flows and let non ECN >> flows going full speed and take whole bandwidth. >> >> Doing so is a nice way to keep users switching to ECN one day. >> >> IETF could just say : ECN is doomed, forget about it, dont even try. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Codel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel >> > > _______________________________________________ > Codel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Codel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
