On 17 March 2019 18:37:27 CET, Loganaden Velvindron <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote: >> >> > Granted, it still remains to be seen whether SCE in practice can >match >> > the results of L4S, and L4S was here first. But it seems to me L4S >comes >> > with some problems that have not yet been examined, and that are >nicely >> > dodged by a SCE-based approach. >> >> I'm actually not that interested in an academic competition about >what >> solution gives the ultimate "best" outcome in simulation or in a lab. >> >> I am interested in good enough solutions that are actually deployable >and >> will get deployed, and doesn't have any pathological behaviour when >it >> comes to legacy traffic. >> >> Right now the Internet is full of deep FIFOs and they're not going >away, >> and they're not getting FQ_CODEL or CAKE. >> >> CAKE/FQ_CODEL is nice, but it's not being deployed at the typical >> congestion points we have in real life. These devices would have a >much >> easier time getting PIE or even RED, if it was just implemented. >> > >is there an open source implementation of PIE which is close to what >is used by the DOCSIS modems ?
Yup. sch_pie in the Linux kernel. I believe Dave originally helped the Cisco people get it upstream... There's even an out of tree fq_pie somewhere. Don't have the link handy. -Toke > >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> Ecn-sane mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane >_______________________________________________ >Ecn-sane mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
