fwiw: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sallantin-iccrg-initial-spreading-01.txt
Sent from my iPhone > On 20. sep. 2014, at 17:55, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 20 Sep, 2014, at 12:03 pm, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 02:33:06AM +0300, Dave Taht wrote: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-iw10-considered-harmful-00 >> >> The pedant in me wants to point out that 4 -> 10 is not “2.5 times worse”, >> but “2.5 times as bad” or “1.5 times worse” (just as 4 -> 5 is “20% worse”, >> “0.2 times worse” or “1.2 times as bad”). > > ISTR seeing some concrete test data showing that IW10 doesn't even work as > designed, unless TCP pacing of some type is used to spread out the burst. > That's *despite* bloated buffers. Really puts the nail in the coffin, if you > ask me. > > The recent work on SQM could be added to the list of mitigation measures. > Also, by keeping inter-flow latency low, it greatly reduces the original > motivation for IW10 in the first place. > > - Jonathan Morton > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
