> On 21 Mar, 2015, at 02:38, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote: > >>> On 21 Mar, 2015, at 02:25, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> As I said, there are two possibilities >>> >>> 1. if you mark packets sooner than you would drop them, advantage non-ECN >>> >>> 2. if you mark packets and don't drop them until higher levels, advantage >>> ECN, and big advantage to fake ECN >> >> 3: if you have flow isolation with drop-from-longest-queue-on-overflow, >> faking ECN doesn’t matter to other traffic - it just turns the faker’s >> allocation of queue into a dumb, non-AQM one. No problem. > > so if every flow is isolated so that what it generates has no effect on any > other traffic, what value does ECN provide?
A *genuine* ECN flow benefits from reduced packet loss and smoother progress, because the AQM can signal congestion to it without dropping. > and how do you decide what the fair allocation of bandwidth is between all > the threads? Using DRR. This is what fq_codel does already, as it happens. As does cake. In other words, the last half-dozen posts have been an argument about a solved problem. - Jonathan Morton _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
