Dear All,
> On Mar 20, 2019, at 00:59, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:44 AM Greg White <g.wh...@cablelabs.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> But, L4S has been demonstrated in real equipment and in simulation, and
>> leverages an existing congestion
>
> Not under circumstances I can control. That's Not Science.
[...]
It would be great if the L4S project maybe could help kick-start independent
testing, by creating an sharing two VMs one with the appropriate client side
patches and one with a L4S aware AQM (probably curvy RED to avoid the patent
issue, assuming the patent does not cover curvyRED). So that it is easier to
"kick" the tiers in a way that tests what the L4S project considers compliant
clients/AQM. Personally I am interested to see how robust and reliable the
detection of non-L4S CE sources is and how well the L4S side of the AQM will
tolerate CE-marked packets from non-L4S senders, or in other words how well the
"isolation" works. And also how L4S endpoints will deal with SCE emitting AQMs
on their path.
I admit that I have doubts that ECT(1), basically a single "constellation" of a
2-bit bitfield can serve as a replacement for a single independent bit in a
single-bit bit-field, that seems required for real isolation of flows of
different ECN-response types.
Best Regards
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
