Which does not change the inconvenient fact that L4S does not work over the
open internet. But I bet that fq_codel with a shaper is going to be hands down
the better L4S AQM compared to DualQ... (thanks to its fq nature it can forego
the whole "coupling" heuristic mess and side-step the whole massive unfairness
issues, and keeping the known working codel law for non-ECT(1) traffic also
compared to dualq's burts intolerabt PIE variant also seems like a step in the
right direction).
Then again it seems consequent given that the BBRv2 team seem to be on-board
the L4S train; to put a somewhat positive spin (lipstick?) on this, I assume
that the quality of the L4S engineering might improve...
Regards
Sebastian
P.S.: Witnessing the L4S drama in the IETF makes me appreciate how
comparatively clean and elegant sausages are made...
> On Oct 14, 2021, at 22:06, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211014175918.60188-3-eric.duma...@gmail.com/
>
> --
> Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw
>
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
