On 5/8/2015 11:42 PM, Simon Barber wrote:
I have a couple of concerns with the recommendations of this document as
they stand. Firstly - implementing AQM widely will reduce or even
possibly completely remove the ability to use delay based congestion
control in order to provide a low priority
Greg,
At 23:44 12/05/2015, Greg White wrote:
Bob,
I haven't had a chance to fully read your review (though what I've read
looks to be insightful), but there was one comment in the email thread
that compelled me to respond.
You wrote: There really is no point in employing control
theory
Bob,
I haven't had a chance to fully read your review (though what I've read
looks to be insightful), but there was one comment in the email thread
that compelled me to respond.
You wrote: There really is no point in employing control
theory experts to work out the stability limits
for how fast
Hi Wesley,
Thanks for considering my comments, and apologies for being so late in
the process - I've only recently been able to put time into this area,
and I understand it may be too late in the process to hack things in. I
replied to John with where I'm concerned with the current -11 text.
Hi John,
Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to get
agreement on a global low priority DSCP?
In the latest draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11
Top of page 16, line 3 it says AQM should be applied across the classes
or flows as well
On May 12, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Simon Barber si...@superduper.net wrote:
Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to get agreement
on a global low priority DSCP?
I’d suggest
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4594
4594 Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes. J.
