On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Touch wrote:
On 10/9/2015 3:02 PM, Greg White wrote:
On 10/9/15, 2:04 PM, "Mark Allman" <[email protected]> wrote:
1) *you* shouldn't be using a mechanism that destroys information for
others
2) *you* don't know where your mechanism will have an impact
3) you claim this might be safe *if* AQM is widely deployed
tl;dr summary: myopia is why we can't have nice things
Too true. DOCSIS would have been much cleaner if we didn't have to deal
with the fallout from the myopic TCP designers. :-P
Wouldn't it have been cleaner with more appropriate network provisioning?
"more appropriate network provisioning" is not always going to result in more
bandwidth the way you want it to.
If there is established infrastructure that can handle X in one direction and
100X in the other direction, but "appropriate network provisioning" requires
that the ratio never be more than 3x, it's not going to magically increase
bandwidth in one direction, all it can do is cap bandwidth in the other
direction (throwing away capacity)
Why are you blaming TCP?
first off, didn't you see the smiley?
But treating your question as serious, it's because as RFC3449 shows, highly
assymetric networks or networks with other traffic on them don't work with TCP
the way you want it to work. So the option is to modify TCP or tinker with the
packets to leverage less commonly used features of TCP (or features that are
implicit in the design rather than explicit)
A DOCSIS router ought to route. If it left the packets alone, IMO we'd
all be better off.
So you would rather have people getting slower downloads than have network
equipment modify packets?
Those are the real-world choices.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
