[aqm] the cisco pie patent and IETF IPR filing

Two items: A) The IETF IPR filing http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2187/ points to the wrong patent: 13/874,500. A google search for that patent number brings up http://www.google.com/patents/US20130239255"; It is ironically relevant to the discussions at hand, as that one concerns: Abstract:

Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful"

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: >> >> On 3/3/2015 12:20 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Dave Taht >>> > wrote: How can we fix this user perception,

Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful"

> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: > > On 3/3/2015 12:20 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> >>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Dave Taht >> > wrote: >>> >>> How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in >>> sqm-scripts? >> >> IMHO, p

Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful"

On 3/3/2015 12:20 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Dave Taht > > wrote: >> >> How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in >> sqm-scripts? > > IMHO, ping should go at the same priority as general traffic - the > def

Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in > sqm-scripts? IMHO, ping should go at the same priority as general traffic - the default class, DSCP=0. When I send one, I am asking whether a random packet can get to a g

Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered harmful"

On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 11:17:33 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson said: > We have a huge amount of information in our TCP stacks that either are > locked in there and not used properly to help users figure out what's > going on, and there is basically zero information flow between the > applications using TC