|
|
|
|
|
by namibj
312 days ago
|
|
L4S[0] also helps a lot with sensing congestion before young connections have yet to suffer their first lost packet... Basically it sqrt's your actual packet loss rate as far as feedback frequency/density is concerned, without actually even typically having to enact that loss.
For example, you could get congestion feedback every 100th packet (as you would with 1% packet loss), during network conditions that would traditionally only have 0.01% packet loss.
From [1]: Unless an AQM node schedules application flows explicitly, the likelihood that the AQM drops a Not-ECT Classic packet (p_C) MUST be roughly proportional to the square of the likelihood that it would have marked it if it had been an L4S packet (p_L). That is: p_C ~= (p_L / k)2 The constant of proportionality (k) does not have to be standardized for interoperability, but a value of 2 is RECOMMENDED. The term 'likelihood' is used above to allow for marking and dropping to be either probabilistic or deterministic. [0]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9330.html
[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9331#name-the-strength-of-... |
|