On 27/04/15 13:03, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Neil Davies <[email protected]> writes:
I don't think that the E2E principle can manage the emerging
performance hazards that are arising.
Well, probably not entirely (smart queueing certainly has a place). My
worry is, however, that going too far in the other direction will turn
into a Gordian knot of constraints, where anything that doesn't fit into
the preconceived traffic classes is impossible to do something useful
with.
Or, to put it another way, I'd like the network to have exactly as much
intelligence as is needed, but no more. And I'm not sure I trust my ISP
to make that tradeoff... :(
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.
Well that, and the post linked to from it
(http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/the-future-of-the-internet-the-end-to-end-argument/),
is certainly quite the broadside against end-to-end principle. Colour me
intrigued.
In someways this is just control theory 101 rearing its head... in
another it is a large technical challenge for internet provision.
It's been bugging me for a while that most control theory analysis (of
AQMs in particular) seems to completely ignore transient behaviour and
jump straight to the steady state.
-Toke
I may be too slow and obvious to be interesting or just plain wrong, but...
A network developer at Google seems to think end-to-end is not yet
played out. And that they *do* have an incentive to improve behavior.
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2015-April/002764.html
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2015-April/002776.html
Pacing in sch_fq should improve video-on-demand.
HTTP/2 also provides some improvement for web traffic. *And* the
multiplexing should remove incentives for websites to stop forcing
multiple connections ("sharding"). The incentive then reverses because
connect() (still) requires an RTT.
The two big applications blamed by the article, mitigated out of
self-interest? :-).
I can believe dQ / other math might require more than that. That hiding
problems with more bandwidth doesn't scale. ISPs suffering is more
difficult to swallow from a customer point of view. But still...
'Worse is better' [just-in-time fixes] has been a very powerful
strategy. <rhetorical> What does the first step look like, and what is
the cost for customers?
Strawman: How hard is a global _lower_-priority class? Couldn't
video-on-demand utilize it to fill an over-size buffer and then smooth
over these 30 seconds of transient congestion?
Alan
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
