Simon Barber <[email protected]> writes: > One problem with fair queueing is that it can be gamed. By opening > multiple flows you achieve unfair priority. Part of Codel or PIE's > beauty is that they are blind to the traffic, only reacting to the > externally visible characteristics. This stems from the question 'what > is a flow?'. There is no easy answer to this question, so Codel and > PIE intentionally avoid the question.
Sure, if we knew what the One True Queue Management Scheme that always did the right thing was, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. :) > Of course in many practical situations some simple assumptions about > what a flow is do work, and in those situations fair queueing performs > very well. It's important to keep in mind the limitations though. Fair > queueing is not a panacea. Well, my focus has primarily been "why does my internet suck so much and what can I do to fix it". And for that (e.g. home type networks) fq_codel is very close to a panacea. I am well aware that there probably exists situations in which the fq_codel assumptions do not hold up (and we do point out a couple in the draft). However, I don't think I've ever seen someone actually *demonstrate* (you know, with data) a scenario where fq_codel performs worse than either Codel or PIE. If someone can point me to such a demonstration I'll be happy to be proved wrong... :) -Toke _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
