> On Jun 2, 2016, at 20:55 , Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 2 Jun, 2016, at 21:53, moeller0 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> “conservative”-keyword needs special care in documentation as it is the only
>> keyword that compounds per-packet-overhead and specific framing
>
> Not true. All of the ATM-specific encapsulation keywords - of which there
> are ten others - also force ATM compensation on. This is obvious in the code.
>
> - Jonathan Morton
>
I might not have picked the best example, but the current keywords make it
simple for me ;)
Let me rephrase then , it is not self-evident which keywords are ATM-specific
then… But humor me:
tc qdisc add cake help
Usage: ... cake [ bandwidth RATE | unlimited* | autorate_ingress ]
[ rtt TIME | datacentre | lan | metro | regional | internet* |
oceanic | satellite | interplanetary ]
[ besteffort | precedence | diffserv8 | diffserv4* ]
[ flowblind | srchost | dsthost | hosts | flows* | dual-srchost
| dual-dsthost | triple-isolate ]
[ atm | noatm* ] [ overhead N | conservative | raw* ]
[ wash | nowash* ]
[ memlimit LIMIT ]
(* marks defaults)
Where is it evident that “conservative” includes atm encapsulation? And what
should a user expect that specifies “noatm conservative”?
So Jonathan, please, instead of trying to argue obvious inconsistencies
in the currently assigned encapsulation keywords away, just go and make sure
they are consistent and well documented.
Your postings in the overhead-matter make me question whether you do
fully understand the issue at hand in its full complexity; so by all means go
and collect input from users (usability and self-evidence of the keywords) and
experts (on the actual likelihood of encapsulations).
Best Regards
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
