On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 5:43 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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?
yes. I can get an exact amount of ipv4 and ipv6 routes tomorrow, it has been well over 240 in various stages of this net's evolution, but probably below 100 as I write 'cause that main gw is reverted to static routes right now. > >> 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. Well, packet pacing is now a feature of the tcp stack but not the udp one, but it is good to know something can be done in addition to ecn.... > > -- Juliusz -- Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619 _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
