<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">My statement still stands for CODEL and other algorithms that drop packets once the buffer exceeds a latency threshold. They still have to drop packets, it's just a different metric for when you start to drop the packets. You still need QoS of some form to choose the loser.<div><br></div><div>Craig. <div><br><div><div>On 07/02/2013, at 1:07 PM, Nicholas Meredith <<a href="mailto:nicholas@udhaonline.net">nicholas@udhaonline.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">> <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Ok so the buffers are now full and a voice packet arrives.</span><div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Correct buffer management means the buffers can't get full. Look at CODEL as an example. I realise I should have mentioned earlier this is obviously not possible today, but it will be, and it's the correct solution to the problem.</span></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>Kind Regards,<br><br><br>Nicholas Meredith<br><a href="mailto:nicholas@udhaonline.net">nicholas@udhaonline.net</a><br>Ph: 0430 042 913</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Craig Askings <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:craig@askings.com.au" target="_blank">craig@askings.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Ok so the buffers are now full and a voice packet arrives. Do you want the router / switch to drop that voice packet or choose another packet to take one for the team? That is what QoS is for, even with small buffers you still need QoS to pick the loser.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div>Craig.</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><div><div>On 07/02/2013, at 10:11 AM, Nicholas Meredith <<a href="mailto:nicholas@udhaonline.net" target="_blank">nicholas@udhaonline.net</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">I don't follow, congestion won't cause latency if buffers are controlled correctly. How is QoS better in this case?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 07/02/2013 9:27 AM, "Paul Brooks" <<a href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au" target="_blank">pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 7/02/2013 8:10 AM, Nicholas Meredith wrote:<br>
><br>
> If bufferbloat gets resolved it will render QoS utterly redundant.<br>
><br>
perhaps...until a link went down and the streams re-routed to another path causing<br>
congestion, or more traffic thrown on the original path also causing congestion.<br>
Even if bufferbloat might 'get resolved', which it won't.<br>
<br>
P.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>