Re: [aqm] [tcpPrague] L4S status update

Mario, On 24/11/16 16:57, Mario Hock wrote: Hello Bob and Roland, I followed your discussion and want to share my opinion, here. (Comments inline). Am 22.11.2016 um 20:09 schrieb Bob Briscoe: *Is any AQM CC-neutral?** *Note rule 5 in the AQM

Re: [aqm] L4S status update

Roland, On 24/11/16 20:48, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: Hi Bob, see comments inline, please. Am 22.11.2016 um 20:09 schrieb Bob Briscoe: I share your concern about cc-specific AQMs. But that is not a good characterization of what we're doing. Yep, but it's part of what you're proposing. On th

Re: [aqm] L4S status update

> On 29 Nov, 2016, at 02:45, Bob Briscoe wrote: > > I am particularly worried about embedding fq in the Internet. That is far > worse than embedding a subtly different performance improvement for certain > congestion controls. With fq, the network determines the precise departure > time of ea

Re: [aqm] [tcpPrague] L4S status update

> On 29 Nov, 2016, at 04:55, Matt Mathis wrote: > > Bob's point is that fq_anything forfeits any mechanism for an application or > user to imply the value of the traffic by how much congestion they are > willing to inflict on other traffic. Yes, it does. I actually consider that a good thing