On 27/02/2016, Dave Täht wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/26/16 3:23 AM, De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE) wrote:
>> Hi Wes,
>>
>> Just to let you know that we are still working on AQMs that support
>> scalable (L4S) TCPs.
>> We could present some of our latest results (if there will be a meeting in
>> Buenos Air
Alan Jenkins writes:
> I wouldn't complain that I can't sustain 2056Kbps goodput when my fair
> share of the shaped bandwidth is 2000Kbps. The results might be
> showing a significant degradation, or it could be a marginal one that
> pushes over the boundary (between the 2056k and 1427k encodes)
On 28/02/16 13:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Alan Jenkins writes:
I wouldn't complain that I can't sustain 2056Kbps goodput when my fair
share of the shaped bandwidth is 2000Kbps. The results might be
showing a significant degradation, or it could be a marginal one that
pushes over the bo
>> Oh, and of course HAS is in itself a hack to work around badly managed
>> queues in the network. In a nicely fairness queued world, we could do
>> away with HAS entirely and just, y'know, stream things at the desired
>> rate...
Perhaps I'm missing something -- how do you to pick the right rate
Alan Jenkins writes:
>> Exactly. And note how they just so happen to pick 11 total flows (10
>> competing, one video) to share the bottleneck, putting the per-flow
>> throughput just below the rate needed to go up one quality level. What a
>> coincidence. At least it shows how difficult it is to
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
>>> Oh, and of course HAS is in itself a hack to work around badly managed
>>> queues in the network. In a nicely fairness queued world, we could do
>>> away with HAS entirely and just, y'know, stream things at the desired
>>> rate...
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something -
