On Mar 17, 2011, at 5:05 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > I'm very much in favor of ECN, which in all of the tests I have done has > proven very effective at limiting queues to the knee. I'm also in favor of > delay-based TCPs like CalTech FAST and the Hamilton and CAIA models; FAST > tunes to having a small amount of data continuously in queue at the > bottleneck, and Hamilton/CAIA tunes to a small bottleneck. The problem tends > to be that the "TCP Mafia" - poorly named, but a smallish set of people who > actually control widely-used TCP implementations - tend to very much believe > in the loss-based model, in part because of poor performance from past > delay-based implementations like Vegas and in part due to IPR concerns. Also, > commercial interests like Google are pushing very hard for fast delivery of > content, which is what is behind Linux' recent change to set the initial > window segments.
I didn't say, and should have said: I'm also in favor of AQM in any form; I prefer marking to dropping, but both are signals to the end system. The issue is that we need the right mark/drop rate, and the algorithms are neither trivial nor (if the fact that after 20+ years Van and Kathy haven't yet published a red-lite paper they're happy with is any indication) well documented in the general case. _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
