On 26 Apr, 2011, at 9:32 pm, Wesley Eddy 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".
I would say, more accurately, that the *potential* for packet loss is necessary for correct Internet operation. This is the same as saying that the potential for bringing individual trains to an unscheduled halt is necessary to allow railways to operate safely. If one train is delayed, another train has to wait for it to clear the junction to avoid a collision. If the brakes fail, they are designed to bring the train to an immediate halt rather than face the possibility of not coming to a halt when later required to. If the signals fail, they automatically show Danger. When congestion control fails, packet loss is inevitable. Bigger buffers - the traditional "solution" to packet loss - only delay that fact slightly, and not even for very long. - Jonathan Morton _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
