Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> You're right that packet accelerators complicate things a bit. I'm not >> entirely convinced that the "doesn't lend itself to FQ-CoDel and the >> rest of the mechanisms the bufferbloat movement has gravitated towards" >> actually *has* to be true, but it's harder to do a proof of concept >> since the barrier to entry for hardware development is higher. So I >> doubt anything is likely to happen here unless someone with the >> resources to do hardware development steps up. > > The people with hardware experience want to do PIE, because it lends > itself better for implementation in existing hardware, or hardware > with small modification. > > Sometimes it's better to accept non-perfect more easily implementable > solutions that solves most of the problem space, instead of aiming for > the "perfect one" and getting nothing.
Absolutely, I'm all for that. But even something that is as retrofitable[0] as PIE is not getting implemented... So then what to do? This makes it difficult to motivate spending more resources on doing more work in this area... :/ -Toke [0] "Retrofitable" is totally a word... _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
