From owner-freebsd-net Mon Mar 8 19:25:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from widefw.csl.sony.co.jp (widefw.csl.sony.co.jp [133.138.1.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB63E14FD7 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:25:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kjc@csl.sony.co.jp) Received: from hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp (root@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp [43.27.98.57]) by widefw.csl.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/3.6W) with ESMTP id MAA27291; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:25:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (kjc@[127.0.0.1]) by hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/3.6W/hotaka/98122515) with ESMTP id MAA27488; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:25:22 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <199903090325.MAA27488@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp> To: Joko Y Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ALTQ 1.1.3, support for FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE, started the work In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:11:17 +0700." Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 12:25:21 +0900 From: Kenjiro Cho Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> Mr. Cho, what do you think about W2FQ? I found it in URL below: >> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/hzhang/ As I understand it, WF2Q has evolved a lot since then. WF2Q --> WF2Q+ --> H-WF2Q+ --> H-FSC H-FSC is more theoretical than CBQ and has nice properties. You can find a comparison of H-FSC and CBQ in their SIGCOMM97 paper. Actually, I'm going to visit CMU this week to learn more from Hui Zhang. --Kenjiro To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message