In message <[email protected]> David Collier-Brown writes: > Yup! > > Loss is a bit of like hitting someone with a 2 x 4" as a clue-stick. It > hurts, but it sure does work! > > --dave
ECN might be a touch gentler. But loss on the order of 10^-4 or less doesn't hurt too bad. With classsic TCP (ie: newreno or older and anything newer but not hyper-aggresive) the estimates of the amount of loss per D*BW product done by Matt Mathis still hold. Now if I could just remember what that estimate was ... in any case you get to extremely tiny loss with anything over a few Mb/s and it goes up with square of D*BW. Hyper-aggresive TCP (ie: CUBIC) need to be hit a lot harder. This is where FQ/SFQ really comes in handy. Curtis > On 02/27/2015 09:16 PM, KK wrote: > > This could also be done by not having to depend on "loss" as the primary > > source of feedback... > > On 2/27/15, 6:00 PM, "David Collier-Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > IMHO, removing latency is the aim of FQ. Once done, buffer sizes can be > > unbounded (save by price (;-)) _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
