Thanks much. On Sep 19, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Greg White <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred, > > I know you, Rong and Bill VS have seen it, but in case others haven't, > there is an apples-to-apples comparison of fq-codel and fq-pie in my paper > from May (along with some design notes, since the merge of fq and pie is > not as straightforward as one might think). > > http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf > > Best Regards, > Greg > > > > > On 9/18/14, 12:20 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 16, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If a fq_pie were produced, how would that work? >> >> We are doing an fq_pie implementation, at least as a prototype. It merges >> the fq part of your existing fq_codel code RP¹s PIE algorithm. There is a >> part of me that would want to revisit the design of fq to make it a >> calendar queue, but that is down the road. What we¹re interested in right >> now is an apples/apples comparison with fq_codel. Further reports when >> we¹re ready to report, which isn¹t yet. >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
