Hi Dave and all,
On 07.07.2016 at 21:11 Dave Täht wrote:
> having RTOs? I do not think that a fixed delay is desirable. "You aim
> for a target", not that you need to hit it. More important is high
> utilization, and trying to keep the connections afloat, with as minimum
> latency as possible.
Th
> On 7 Jul, 2016, at 22:12, Klatsky, Carl wrote:
>
>> https://atlas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth16e.pdf
> [CK] I am familiar with CoDel and FQ-CoDel, but what is CoDel-ACT?
It is described in the above-linked paper.
- Jonathan Morton
__
> On 7 Jul, 2016, at 15:34, Michael Menth wrote:
>
>> Based on our evaluations, with pure CoDel (without FQ-CoDel),
>> "reentering" is actually a common case. I think Dave and Toke should
>> have more experimental results to answer this question. (I included
>> Dave in CC)
>
> We also studied
>
>>> the initial next
>>> drop spacing is intended to be long enough to give the endpoints time
>>> to react to the single drop so SHOULD be set to a value *of 1.1 times >the
>>> interval*
>>
>> page 16:
>>
>>
>>> and the in
> On 7 Jul, 2016, at 15:34, Michael Menth wrote:
>
>> Based on our evaluations, with pure CoDel (without FQ-CoDel),
>> "reentering" is actually a common case. I think Dave and Toke should
>> have more experimental results to answer this question. (I included Dave
>> in CC)
>
> We also studied t
>
> and it is also set to*one interval* in pseudo-code, which I believe is
> this line:
>
>
>> drop_next_ = control_law(now, count_);
>
>
> Note: I think there was an email on CoDel mailing list
> (https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/codel/) about this issue
cing is also set to interval.
and it is also set to one interval in pseudo-code, which I believe is this line:
> drop_next_ = control_law(now, count_);
Note: I think there was an email on CoDel mailing list
(https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/codel/) about this issue.
__
On 3/21/2016 5:10 PM, Polina Goltsman wrote:
First of all our feedback regarding different "re-entering dropping
state" in the document and in the Linux implementation
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01686.html) was
not addressed.
Thank you for double-checking; the e
Dear Wesley, Dear All,
First of all our feedback regarding different "re-entering dropping
state" in the document and in the Linux implementation
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01686.html) was not
addressed.
As FQ-CoDel relies on CoDel, this issue is also (partly) rele
It looks like the WGLC feedback on the document body is incorporated, so
this is good.
Is there a reason to stay with Informational and not Experimental like
we've done with PIE an d FQ-CoDel?
Also, idnits has some problems with the references that should be fixed
(e.g. "NATAL2010" is probab
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling
of the IETF.
Title : Controlled Delay Active Queue Management
Authors : Kathleen Nichols
11 matches
Mail list logo
