Dear Wesley, Dear All,
First of all our feedback regarding different "re-entering dropping
state" in the document and in the Linux implementation
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01686.html) was not
addressed.
As FQ-CoDel relies on CoDel, this issue is also (partly)
On 02/27/2016 06:21 PM, Dave Täht wrote:
On 2/26/16 6:17 AM, Rasool Al-Saadi wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to announce that we (myself and Grenville Armitage) released
Dummynet AQM v0.1, which is an independent implementation of CoDel and FQ-CoDel
for FreeBSD's ipfw/dummynet framework,
On 02/05/2016 03:18 AM, Dave Täht wrote:
Pie itself is proposed as standards track, despite the lack of field
data, a 15 page criticism from bob briscoe of the public implementation,
and other open issues like that.
if "the public implementation" refers to Linux kernel module sch_pie,
then it
Dear Wesley,
I apologize for the long delay. Below are responses to your emails
regarding the draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines.
On 22.01.16 15:50, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 12/7/2015 7:32 AM, Polina Goltsman wrote
generation. Every
strict number or specific flow characteristic limits the scope of this
document that is not only focusing on web traffic latency reduction in
home routers.
Please see inline for specific answer to your concerns.
Cheers,
Nicolas
*De :*aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] *De la part
Dear all,
Apologies for the long delay.
I have review the latest version of the draft. In my opinion the
document still needs a detailed review about the representation (the
text): the structure of the document would make more sense if the
information in section 2, 3, and 4 would appear in
Dear Bob,
On 09/30/2015 10:50 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
Early on, Rong Pan showed that it takes CoDel ages to bring high load
under control. I think this linear increase is the reason.
Is there a link to this ?
Polina
___
aqm mailing list
one more comment:
formulas for autotuning p in both pseudo-codes are different from the
ones in Section 4.2.
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
first, thanks again...
I forgot one thing though:
What is the default value of threshold for default interval and target?
-- Best Regards
On 08/14/2015 04:52 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
1. in Cake, count saturates at 2^32-1, am I right
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks for your extensive answer. If you could comment on a couple more
things:
1. in Cake, count saturates at 2^32-1, am I right
(https://github.com/dtaht/sch_cake/blob/master/codel5.h#L352).
could it make sense to saturate count when interval/sqrt(count) and
Hello all,
Here are my thoughts about interaction of AQM and fair-queueing system.
I think I will start with a figure. I have started a tcp flow with
netperf, and 15 seconds later unresponsive UDP flow with iperf with a
send rate a little bit above bottleneck link capacity. Both flows run
On 07/03/2015 01:30 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jul 2, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
This is, as far as I can tell from your explanation, different than what
fq_pie does.
OK, apologies for the misinformation.
In any event, the matter is not fundamental to
Hello all,
If I understood the code correctly, in fq_pie there is a single PIE
instance that controls all fq queues. In contrast in fq_codel there is
a separate instance of codel for each queue. Is this the case? If it is,
doesn't it contradict with original idea of fq_something where each
13 matches
Mail list logo
