accusing people of discussing in bad faith because of their business model,
short sightedness, or other failing is not a good approach to take.
This discussion started from AQM and the smart things that can be done on the
data in the queues. If TCP is to remain purely "end to end" as you want it to
be, AQM should not exist, because it re-orders packets.
You don't want to acknowlege it, but TCP is broken in the face of excessive
buffering. TCPM isn't fixing that, grassroots efforts are developing the fixes
and AQM is formalizing the results.
TCP is also broken in the face of current and within-the-next-year future wifi
technologies. AQM helps some here, and there is again outside efforts to address
the problem. TCPM hasn't done anything that I've heard of other than possibly
say that the network technology is broken and shouldn't be used.
Guess what, all existing Wifi and Cell networks are not going to be scrapped
just because you don't like them. Especially when people are demonstrating ways
to significantly improve performance there.
David Lang
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, I'm using "you" metaphorically, both here and in other posts.
I.e., whomever is pushing this solution is supporting a business model
that's broken. I don't much care whether the proponents are employed by
that business or not.
There is always tension between commercial interests (and proponents)
and the model of the Internet. The Internet presents a dangerous
opportunity for incredible gain without responsibility.
The tragedy of the commons is very real, and this is a good example of
it. It doesn't matter whether the solutions are being pushed by those
profiting or by those who see only the local, short-term benefit rather
then the potential long term impact.
As has been discussed on TCPM, there may be ways to reduce the impact of
ACKs on the net without having an intermediate device interfere. Let's
have that discussion there and work together on a solution that benefits
everyone - avoiding unnecessary load on the net AND preserving the E2E
semantics of TCP so it can continue to evolve for future capabilities.
Joe
On 10/9/2015 4:31 PM, David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Touch wrote:
If you have one person trying to watch streaming video while another
person is uploading pictures to facebook, you can run into trouble at
much more even ratios.
Restated, you run into trouble because you sold a service you didn't
provision for ;-)
(or, more to the point, you took a gamble that you could sell a useful
service with a particular assumption about traffic ratios, and that
assumption no longer holds)
Again, IMO TCP isn't to be tampered with merely to support a business
model, and that's all I see so far.
Where did you get the idea that I work for an ISP, let alone a cable ISP
or had any influence in designing or building such networks. I don't.
You are assigning motives here that are clearly false.
As I keep re-stating, this is not a cable/DOCSIS issue, it applies to
all sorts of things, with Wifi and Cellular being the newest (and
arguably biggest) sources of the network flow getting quantomized.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
