+1 On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:02 AM Roland Bless <roland.bl...@kit.edu> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 22.03.19 at 19:28 Victor Hou wrote: > > > Broadcom has been deeply involved in developing the Low Latency DOCSIS > > cable industry specification that Bob Briscoe mentioned. We concur with > > the L4S use of ECT(1). L4S can be implemented either in a dual-queue or > > an fq implementation. SCE cannot be implemented with a dual-queue > > implementation; the only way to support it is with an fq > > implementation. An fq implementation is incompatible with the Low > > Latency DOCSIS specification developed within the cable industry. > > I don't understand your rationale here. > The basic SCE concept could be used for L4S as well. > I suggest to use an additional DSCP to mark L4S packets. > The L4S sender/receiver can simply react to the SCE > markings the same way that they now react to CE, with > the difference that it's safer to react to SCE, because > the signal is unambiguous, whereas CE would be ambiguous > (could be set by either classic AQM/ECN node or by > an L4S node). > > Regards > Roland > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
