On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Dave Taht wrote:
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
Maybe attached patch is more comprehensive?
Yep! why was diffserv8 5 in the first place?
"diffserve8 is 5"? I don't understand. Do you mean 001000?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3662
3.2. PHB configuration
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
> Maybe attached patch is more comprehensive?
Yep! why was diffserv8 5 in the first place?
>
> KDB
>
>> On 21 Aug 2019, at 16:07, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> Just ressurrecting this old thread for review now that this is an
>> official RFC. I note also that the NQB
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:34 AM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> >> The problem with CAKE/FQ and background traffic is that it can't tell if
> >> there is congestion or not, and things like LEDBAT can't backoff and try
> >> to avoid causing congestion. So your
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote:
The problem with CAKE/FQ and background traffic is that it can't tell if
there is congestion or not, and things like LEDBAT can't backoff and try
to avoid causing congestion. So your previous email about allowing some
congestion to take place on LE would be
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 11:11 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > Well, (I just checked, let me know if you want the captures) comcast
> > still re-marks all codepoints it does not recognize, to become CS1,
> > including this one. So the smartest thing a
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote:
Well, (I just checked, let me know if you want the captures) comcast
still re-marks all codepoints it does not recognize, to become CS1,
including this one. So the smartest thing a comcast customer can do is
wash it out on entrance to their domain.
If I
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, David P. Reed wrote:
>
>> This fairy story about traffic giving way to higher priority traffic
>> being a normal mode of operation is just that. A made up story,
>> largely used by folks who want to do selective pricing based on what
>> customers
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, David P. Reed wrote:
This fairy story about traffic giving way to higher priority traffic
being a normal mode of operation is just that. A made up story, largely
used by folks who want to do selective pricing based on what customers
are willing to pay, not on value
> On 4 Feb, 2019, at 12:42 am, David P. Reed wrote:
>
> This fairy story about traffic giving way to higher priority traffic being a
> normal mode of operation is just that. A made up story, largely used by folks
> who want to do selective pricing based on what customers are willing to pay,
>
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM David P. Reed wrote:
>
> Well, you all know that I think of diffserv as an abortion. It's based on
> thinking that assumes central, hierachical adminstrative agreements among
> what should be autonomous systems.
I too think diffserv is terrible. On the other
Well, you all know that I think of diffserv as an abortion. It's based on
thinking that assumes central, hierachical adminstrative agreements among what
should be autonomous systems.
Yeah, at layer 2 for packets that stay within an administratively uniform
domain, diffserv can be useful.
But
> On 3 Feb, 2019, at 8:39 pm, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> it's 01 which I guess is:
>
> diff --git a/sch_cake.c b/sch_cake.c
> index 3a26db0..67263b3 100644
> --- a/sch_cake.c
> +++ b/sch_cake.c
> @@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ static const u8 diffserv4[] = {
> };
>
> static const u8 diffserv3[] = {
> -
12 matches
Mail list logo
