On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 00:29 -0700, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > these are all good points. I wanted to repeat something I said at the > mike in Stockholm which I think is essential: > > We cannot make a recommendation for a certain buffer size without also > saying which queuing scheme we recommend for that buffer. > > If we assume that FIFO queuing will be used, yes, the buffer size has > a large, direct impact on the observable behavior. Not so for various > AQM schemes (RED, etc.). Since my personal preference would be to > recommend something smarter than FIFO, I don't see buffer size as very > critical then. (Now, how to correctly parameterize an AQM scheme for a > given link, *that* would be critical...)
802.1Qbb (http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1bb.html) priority PAUSE has the right semantics to push the queues back into the hosts where they can react intelligently. Unfortunately, this would require more-or-less universal adoption in modems, gateways, switches, hosts, and WiFi APs. Regards, ///////////////////////////////////////////// Steven Blake [email protected] Extreme Networks +1 919-884-3211
