Michael Welzl <[email protected]> writes: > +1, certainly it has a big influence. This has been well known for > many years though, and documented broadly, perhaps most notably by Jim > Roberts.
Being "well known for many years" in the academic community unfortunately doesn't translate into deployment. Which is why I think there should be a place for both approaches: the "let's simplify and get a thorough base understanding" and the "let's run this on real stuff and see what happens". > Here I disagree, for two reasons: > > 1) The AQM part kicks in per flow. So, whenever you have one flow, the > behavior of FQ_AQM and AQM will be the same. Investigating what an AQM > mechanism does to one flow is then worthwhile. > > 2) Not everyone will always want FQ everywhere. There are potential > disadvantanges (e.g. the often mentioned with-a-VPN-I'm-only-1-flow problem). > What's necessary is to quantify them - to see how the effect of FQ (or > FQ_CoDel's changed FQ) plays out, and you've done a great start there in my > opinion. I didn't mean that investigating AQM behaviour is not worthwhile, far from it. But I believe that FQ needs to play a much larger role than it does currently in solving the larger problem of network (latency) behaviour under load. And completely separating the two is academic; not in the derogatory sense (as in "a problem not worth discussing"), but in the literal sense (as in "the thing we do in academia"). -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
