> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Yuchung Cheng wrote: > > > We are curious why you choose the single-queued AQM. Is it just for > > the sake of testing? > > Non-flow aware AQM is the most commonly deployed "queue > management" on the Internet today. Most of them are just stupid FIFOs > with taildrop, and the buffer size can be anywhere from super small to huge > depending on equipment used and how it's configured. > > Any proposed TCP congestion avoidance algorithm to be deployed on the > wider Internet has to some degree be able to handle this deployment > scenario without killing everything else it's sharing capacity with. > > Dave Tähts testing case where BBR just kills Cubic makes me very concerned.
If I am understanding BBR correctly, that is working in the sender to receiver direction. In Dave's test running TCP BBR & TCP CUBIC with a single queue AQM, where CUBIC gets crushed. Silly question, but the single queue AQM was also operating in the in sender to receiver direction for this test, yes? _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
