On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 13:47, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4 Mar, 2019, at 4:55 am, Georgios Amanakis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > …the fairness logic wouldn't account for that "ingress traffic" and would > > yield fairer results. > > Well there we have a quandary, since presently it enforces fairness of *load* > on the bottleneck link, but the change would alter that to fairness of > *delivered* traffic. The current setup is arguably more robust against > adversarial traffic, don't you think?
And it provides an incentive to use ECN so that congestion signals can be sent "for free" without dropping packets that have traversed the bottleneck. I'm firmly in favour of the current setup. This is analogous to the WiFi airtime fairness problem that Toke knows all too much about :) We want fairness of time on the bottleneck medium. Aiming for fairness of goodput to each host allows less efficient hosts to use more than their fair share of the medium - reducing the efficiency of the whole network and weakening incentives to be more efficient. _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
