On 4/26/2011 3:37 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Wesley Eddy<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/26/2011 2:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
"Big Buffers Bad. Small Buffers Good."
"*Some* packet loss is essential for the correct operation of the
Internet"
are two of the memes I try to propagate, in their simplicity. Even
then there are so many qualifiers to both of those that the core
message gets lost.
The second one is actually backwards; it should be "the Internet can
operate correctly with some packet loss".
INCORRECT.
See? We can't win, even amongst ourselves.
The Internet *cannot operate correctly without packet loss*.
RFC970, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc970.html
Operating with infinite storage and operating without packet loss are
two different things.
Ideally, you may have a path with ample bandwidth such that packet
losses don't occur and all connections are either application limited or
receive window limitedand congestion control never kicks in. In this
case, there's no loss and the Internet clearly works.
--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
