There are devils in the details, probably.
Forwarded Message
Folks,
Reminder, agenda & supporting materials below for the Bar BoF on L4S /
DualQ Coupled AQM / TCP Prague
*Event details**
*Date/time: 09:00 - 10:00 local time (ART = 12-13:00 UTC) Thu 7 Apr 2016
Room: Quebracho B
> On 7 Apr, 2016, at 05:06, jb wrote:
>
> But am I just looking for "ECN capable" flags originating from a given
> public IP?
> or am I filtering just for CE marks (11), indicating there was some
> active queue management actually going on -- and only that would be
> worth mentioning?
The latte
Regarding picking up advanced congestion management in a result, it
would be possible by adding a concurrent tcpdump on each test server -
running all the time and filtering for the appropriate bits.
But am I just looking for "ECN capable" flags originating from a given
public IP?
or am I filterin
I think people focus on packet loss so much because the term is short,
seemingly conveys a lot of info and is easy to measure.
Given that know how to measure bloat, it strikes me that what is needed is a
short marketing-style tag for bloat that can be put up against the term "packet
loss".
T
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:19 PM, jb wrote:
> I take your point regarding Quality
Thx! I am not grumpy at you in particular, but at a world that
continues to view packet loss as completely undesirable (I was at
several ietf meetings like that yesterday, and 2 days ago the
FCC's "nutrition labels fo
