>> Interesting. AFAIK, ECN is only considered by AQM queues, so this implies >> there's a queue in the way that's dropping Babel packets.
> There's fq_codel on every queue, which does FQ, and codel assumes > everything is at least moderately TCP friendly (and/or reasonably > responsive to ecn marks) Jonathan seems to agree with you. Were your tests run with more than 60 installed routes or so? >> Or perhaps, if we know which queue that is, >> we could modify Babel's packet scheduling to be more AQM friendly? > How would you describe babel's packet schedulig now? The main flaw is that it sends periodic updates as a burst of back-to-back full-size packets. That could trigger Codel if you had more than 60 routes or so. > So dumping packets in there at a rate no more than 20ms each (short term > burst of 100ms) - relative to whatever bandwidth can be achieved vs the > other flows. Right. Guilty as charged. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
