> On 29 Sep, 2016, at 02:26, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> All along I'd been assuming
> that a specialized TCP of some new flavor yet-to-be-agreed-upon would
> negotiate ECN and most/all its packets would be marked ECT(1), rather
> than ECT(0), and a new AQM would treat a flow like that differently,
> b
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>> On 27 Sep, 2016, at 21:18, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Morton
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 25 Sep, 2016, at 21:30, Dave Taht wrote:
Judging from me tearing apart how TCP BBR works (presentl
On 28/09/16 12:49, Dave Taht wrote:
From a multiple IP perspective, at least on egress through a switch,
you could hash on the mac address instead of the IP...
/me hides
^^^ Yes! Back to your spam trap :-)
___
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.b
From a multiple IP perspective, at least on egress through a switch,
you could hash on the mac address instead of the IP...
/me hides
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
wrote:
>
>
> On 28/09/16 07:07, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
>>
>> Two buglets found:
>>
>> in sch_cake
On 28/09/16 07:07, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
Two buglets found:
in sch_cake - the atm/ptm flag options are not passed back to tc
userspace correctly - ptm isn't sent back.
Just fixed that & pushed don't forget to pull :-)
___
Cake mailin
