On 27 Apr 2015, at 11:52, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Davies <[email protected]> writes: > >> The interesting thing is making all those local decisions add up to a >> (set of) end-to-end outcomes, and the answer is not to make the same >> decision(s) everywhere - unfortunately that doesn’t stack up. > > Yes, well, I do also like the E2E principle of not making too many > decisions within the network, instead letting the endpoints sort it out. > For me, the fight against bufferbloat is mostly about restoring the > assumptions that it has eroded (i.e. "packet loss is not to be feared, > but on the contrary is an important indicator that we're hitting > congestion"). I'd really rather prefer the network itself to be fairly > dumb... I don't think that the E2E principle can manage the emerging performance hazards that are arising. We've seen this recently in practice: take a look at http://www.martingeddes.com/how-far-can-the-internet-scale/ - it is based on a real problem we'd encountered. In someways this is just control theory 101 rearing its head... in another it is a large technical challenge for internet provision. >> We have (some level) of control over our “universe of discourse” - my >> joke with my mates at CERN is that they only have one universe to >> investigate, we can create three in one day and still be home in time >> for tea! > > Hehe, quite. That is both fascinating and frustrating! :) > > -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
