> On 25. feb. 2015, at 20.04, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Michael Welzl wrote: > >> 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. > > If you only have one flow, then FQ should be just fine as you aren't > competing against anything. > > When your one flow starts mixing with other people's traffic, you will suffer > a bit if they use multiple flows,
this is of course the situation I meant - > but how could anything possibly tell that you are doing many things through > that one flow rather than doing a single massive thing that should be limited > for fairness with others? > > The areas of the network that could have this knowledge don't have the > competing flows, by the time you get to the point where you do have competing > flows, you don't have any way of getting the knowledge (you can't trust > whatever the user tells you as they could be just gaming you to get an unfair > share of bandwidth) Not enforcing anything will let things play out like before. FQ is the opposite end, by enforcing per-flow fairness. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but recently, quite often I hear that yes, FQ is always better :-) Not always clear and worth investigating is all I say. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
