On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:20 PM Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5 Apr, 2019, at 6:10 pm, 'Neal Cardwell' via BBR Development < > bbr-...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > Right. I didn't mean setting the codel target to 242us. Where the slide > says "Linux codel with ECN ce_threshold at 242us sojourn time" I literally > mean a Linux machine with a codel qdisc configured as: > > > > codel ce_threshold 242us > > I infer from this that BBR's new ECN support won't work properly with > standard CE marking behaviour, only with the sort of signal that DCTCP > requires. Is that accurate? > Yes, that's correct. Thus far BBR v2 is targeting only DCTCP/L4S-style ECN. > SCE allows providing that sort of high-fidelity congestion signal without > losing interoperability with RFC-3168 compliant flows. > Noted, thanks. neal
_______________________________________________ Flent-users mailing list Flent-users@flent.org http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org
