Hi Gorry, > > Given QUIC includes FEC to hide losses, I guess it is a good example to > > consider whether ECN still offers sufficient benefits over and above > > just removing losses. > > > GF: And then, isn't the implication of AQM to significantly increase the > number of "losses" unless we use ECN? > > Indeed, I have the impression we are confusing many on these points - > ECN could change the reaction to congestion signal, and FEC (even > opportunistic CC-friendly FEC) can also change the way things react to > congestion signals.
I don't think that an AQM's implication is automatically to increase the number of losses; that may happen to specific flows (in particular, unresponsive ones), but for responsive (non-ECN) ones, the expectation would be to de-correlate the losses, and for TCP, to only have around 1 loss per window when necessary - instead of a burst loss of one window and the expensive recovery... Perhaps it's that perception that also poses an obstacle to AQM deployment, because of the believe that a dynamic but lower mark/drop threshold will cause more losses? Regards, Richard _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
