On 28/11/16 10:42 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 29 Nov, 2016, at 04:55, Matt Mathis <[email protected]> wrote:
Bob's point is that fq_anything forfeits any mechanism for an application or
user to imply the value of the traffic by how much congestion they are willing
to inflict on other traffic.
Yes, it does.
I actually consider that a good thing, because most applications will, given
the choice, choose to inflict more congestion on other traffic in order to
boost their own performance. There are honourable exceptions, but it’s not a
behaviour we can solely rely on.
For example, Steam uses between four and eight parallel TCP streams (I can’t
figure out what the number depends on) to receive game updates, when one or two
would already saturate most domestic Internet connections. This magnifies the
impact on other things the user might be doing with that connection, such as -
ironically enough - playing multiplayer games. You’d think Valve, of all
companies, would keep that in mind.
Valve is like a lot of companies in "exciting" areas, and doesn't stop
to think. Like a lot of other game companies just throw resources at
problems, willy-nilly. The excessive tuning of Steam is typical.
The gamers know better, but treat the problem as a game and think up
cool workarounds (;-))
Neither of them falls into any kind of economic domain.
--dave (at WorldGaming) c-b
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
[email protected] | -- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
