This article is confused, or at best unclear, about how AQM works:
"CAKE then added Active Queue Management (AQM), which performs the same kind of bandwidth probing that vanilla TCP does but adds in-band congestion signaling to detect congestion as soon as possible. The transmission rate is slowly raised until a congestion signal is received,[...]"
This appears to suggest that Cake (an in-network AQM process) takes over some of the functionality of TCP (implemented in the endpoints). What's actually happening is that the AQM provides a better signal to allow TCP to do a better job.
The rest of the article is more it less accurate, albeit that it's marketing for one particular tool rather than giving you the level of understanding needed to choose one.
The dig at PIE (another AQM) is also a bit misleading, in that their main complaint is not PIE itself but the lack of all these other features they think necessary. If Cake used PIE instead of CODEL I don't think it would be noticeably different.
"CAKE then added Active Queue Management (AQM), which performs the same kind of bandwidth probing that vanilla TCP does but adds in-band congestion signaling to detect congestion as soon as possible. The transmission rate is slowly raised until a congestion signal is received,[...]"
This appears to suggest that Cake (an in-network AQM process) takes over some of the functionality of TCP (implemented in the endpoints). What's actually happening is that the AQM provides a better signal to allow TCP to do a better job.
The rest of the article is more it less accurate, albeit that it's marketing for one particular tool rather than giving you the level of understanding needed to choose one.
The dig at PIE (another AQM) is also a bit misleading, in that their main complaint is not PIE itself but the lack of all these other features they think necessary. If Cake used PIE instead of CODEL I don't think it would be noticeably different.