No.
> On 3. jul. 2015, at 19.55, Simon Barber <[email protected]> wrote: > > One impact that come to mind is RTT fairness. A single AQM instance results > in RTT unfairness (flows with higher RTT achieve lower bandwidth than flows > with low RTT), whereas one AQM per queue results in RTT fairness. > > Simon > > On 7/3/2015 4:40 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 03.07.2015 um 12:16 schrieb Toke Høiland-Jørgensen: >>> Polina Goltsman <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> As I understand the FQ-Codel draft, it seems to be fundamental to >>>> FQ-Codel that each queue has separate state variables. So my question >>>> is: is it indeed fundamental ? >>> I suppose that becomes a matter of semantics: What exactly do you mean >>> by 'fundamental'. If you mean "an integral part of the current >>> algorithm", then yes. If you mean "it's unthinkable to build a similar >>> algorithm without the separate state variables" then no. I understand >>> Fred's comment to take the second interpretation. :) >> I guess Polina's point was: >> it is a question how "similar" two realizations of PIE would be >> if one applies PIE per flow like in FQ-Codel or alternatively >> (as proposed by FQ-PIE) FQ first and then PIE working on the >> aggregated queue. >> Was it a deliberate choice for the latter and if so, why? >> It would be good to document this difference to FQ-Codel explicitly. >> >> Regards, >> Roland >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aqm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
