Dave Taht <[email protected]> writes: >> I've added a reference pointing to the fq_codel code in Linux git tree >> to the latest updated version, available here: >> https://kau.toke.dk/ietf/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-06.html (or .txt). > > I'm not huge on calling this reference [LINUX]. [LINUXSRC]? [SRC]?
Figured the RFC editor was going to fix that. > I also felt compelled, after this round of cite-adding, to add a few > more cites, (what will be) rfc7806, BQL, HTB, and HFSC, with a brief > section explaining why they are needed also. BQL was the under > appreciated breakthrough that made scaling past a gbit possible, and > would (if implemented) make dsl and cable modems a lot better, > at their (much slower) speeds. > > https://github.com/dtaht/bufferbloat-rfcs/commit/7d500133008857b7b78000abac9d592e66477ffb > > adding: > > ## Device queues must also be well controlled > > It is best that these AQM and FQ algorithms run as close to the hardware > as possible. Scheduling such complexity at interrupt time is difficult, so > a small standing queue between the algorithm and the wire is often needed > at higher transmit rates. > > In Linux, this is accomplished via "Byte Queue Limits" {{BQL}} in the > device driver ring buffer (for physical line rates), and via a software > rate limiter such as {HTB}}, {{HFSC}}, or {{CAKE}} otherwise. > > Other issues with concatenated queues are described in {{CODEL}}. Will fix up your additions before submitting the updated draft tomorrow (from eyeballing, I'm pretty sure it doesn't currently compile). > There has been such an accumulation of small changes in response to > this wonderful review process that I fear that going through another > "last, last" call will be needed. Well, while there has been a bunch, they're all clarifications and minor changes; the substance is not changed from the version that went to last call. -Toke _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
