On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Daniel Havey wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:49 PM, David Lang wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Daniel Havey wrote:
> >>
> >>> We know that (see Kathy and Van's paper) that AQM algorithms only work
> >>> when they are placed at the slowest queue. However, the AQM is pl
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Daniel Havey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:49 PM, David Lang wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Daniel Havey wrote:
We know that (see Kathy and Van's paper) that AQM algorithms only work
when they are placed at the slowest queue. However, the AQM is placed
at the queue that
Hmmm, maybe I can help clarify. Bufferbloat occurs in the slowest
queue on the path. This is because the other queues are faster and
will drain. AQM algorithms work only if they are placed where the
packets pile up (e.g. the slowest queue in the path). This is
documented in Kathy and Van's CoDe
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> thanks for the clarifications.
>
> On Jun 11, 2015, at 02:10 , Daniel Havey wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, maybe I can help clarify. Bufferbloat occurs in the slowest
>> queue on the path. This is because the other queues are faster
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:49 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Daniel Havey wrote:
>
>> We know that (see Kathy and Van's paper) that AQM algorithms only work
>> when they are placed at the slowest queue. However, the AQM is placed
>> at the queue that is capable of providing 8 Mbps an
Hi Daniel,
On Jun 12, 2015, at 17:02 , Daniel Havey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>> [...]
>>Except that DOCSIS 3.1 pie in the modem does not work that way. As I
>> understand
>> http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May201
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Daniel Havey wrote:
We know that (see Kathy and Van's paper) that AQM algorithms only work
when they are placed at the slowest queue. However, the AQM is placed
at the queue that is capable of providing 8 Mbps and this is not the
slowest queue. The AQM algorithm will not w
Hi Alan,
On Jun 11, 2015, at 03:05 , Alan Jenkins
wrote:
> On 10/06/15 21:54, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 21:53 , Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>>> http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/networking/networking2015/1570064417.pdf
>>>
>>> gargoyle's qos system follows a simila
Hi Daniel,
thanks for the clarifications.
On Jun 11, 2015, at 02:10 , Daniel Havey wrote:
> Hmmm, maybe I can help clarify. Bufferbloat occurs in the slowest
> queue on the path. This is because the other queues are faster and
> will drain. AQM algorithms work only if they are placed where t
On 10/06/15 21:54, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Jun 10, 2015, at 21:53 , Dave Taht wrote:
http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/networking/networking2015/1570064417.pdf
gargoyle's qos system follows a similar approach, using htb + sfq, and
a short ttl udp flow.
Doing this sort of measured, th
Hi Dave,
On Jun 10, 2015, at 21:53 , Dave Taht wrote:
> http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/networking/networking2015/1570064417.pdf
>
> gargoyle's qos system follows a similar approach, using htb + sfq, and
> a short ttl udp flow.
>
> Doing this sort of measured, then floating the rate control with
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
