I would like to revert this change. On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> writes: > >>> On 18 Apr, 2018, at 6:17 pm, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Just a thought, in egress mode in the typical deployment we expect, >>> the bandwidth leading into cake will be >> than the bandwidth out of >>> cake, so I would argue that the package droppage might be acceptable >>> on egress as there is bandwidth to "waste" while on ingress the issue >>> very much is that all packets cake sees already used up parts of the >>> limited transfer time on the bottleneck link and hence are more >>> "precious", no? Users wanting this new behavior could still use the >>> ingress keyword even on egress interfaces? >> >> Broadly speaking, that should indeed counter most of the negative >> effects you'd expect from disabling this tweak in egress mode. But it >> doesn't really answer the question of whether there's a compelling >> *positive* reason to do so. I want to see a use case that holds up. > > What you're saying here is that you basically don't believe there are > any applications where a bulk TCP flow would also want low queueing > latency? :) > > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
-- Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619 _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
