Re: [Cake] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

I agree with you that support for a separate NQB queue in the flowblind, srchost, dsthost, & hosts modes (if supported) should be controllable and documented. It would seem simplest to me that this configuration would apply to all instantiated "queues" (like other parameters: nat, wash, and

Re: [Cake] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

Sebastian, Please don't -Greg On 3/14/23, 10:51 AM, "tsvwg on behalf of Sebastian Moeller" mailto:tsvwg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of moell...@gmx.de > wrote: Hi Ruerdiger, > On Mar 14, 2023, at 16:09, >

Re: [Cake] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

Hi Greg, > On Mar 14, 2023, at 17:25, Greg White wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > The NQB requirement is that it shares capacity with and is at the same > priority as Default (CS0). So, for all priority queue options in CAKE (aside > from precedence, perhaps), I would recommend that you align with

Re: [Cake] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

Hi Ruerdiger, > On Mar 14, 2023, at 16:09, > wrote: > > Dave, > > thanks for asking - I'm not an NQB author, and my know-how on Linux QoS / > Cake is fairly zero. Did you want to address Greg? > > I myself am still struggling to understand how NQB operates. I understand the > idea behind

Re: [Cake] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

Hi Dave, > On Mar 14, 2023, at 15:01, Dave Taht wrote: > > I have been sitting on the cake related patches for this for years > now, and it is my hope to get support for NQB into the next linux > release, regardless of whether it gets through last call at this time, > unless the selected

Re: [Cake] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

Hi Dave, The NQB requirement is that it shares capacity with and is at the same priority as Default (CS0). So, for all priority queue options in CAKE (aside from precedence, perhaps), I would recommend that you align with that requirement. So, I think I agree with what you wrote below for

[Cake] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

I have been sitting on the cake related patches for this for years now, and it is my hope to get support for NQB into the next linux release, regardless of whether it gets through last call at this time, unless the selected codepoint number changes. (?) Cake (please see the man page here: