> On Mar 4, 2019, at 5:22 AM, Ryan Mounce <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
I think that’s the best argument for the current behavior. > 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 Agreed. I was going to provide test results of aggressive UDP vs TCP with and without the change, but I’m seeing some odd behavior with UDP that I’ll investigate more and start in a separate thread if needed. :) _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
