On 03/12/17 10:44 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
More generally, the case where you have a queue containing acks, stored
up for whatever reason (congestion, media access, asymmetry), is a
chance for a middlebox or host to do something "smarter" to thin them
out.
Acks don't respond to conventional congestion control mechanisms anyway.
There is another case (that I don't support) where you would try to
filter out acks on the fly without a queue (similar to how a policer
works). The flaws of this approach are many, including tail loss,
which the concept of filtering down (reducing?) a queue, doesn't have.
Taking a very high-level view of this discussion, the times you want to
change a protocol or add a 'network optimizer" are when enough time has
passed that the original requirements don't describe what you want any more.
In a previous life I did some work on the optimization (by remote
proxying) of the SMB protocol used by Samba. It was very desirable, but
at the cost of continuing to support a protocol that did the wrong
thing, and kludging it with additional middleware. In effect, making
your new system dependent on a bug in the old one.
Eventually we said the heck with it, and sat Samba on top of a different
protocol entirely, one which worked well over non-local links. That
concentrate the impedance matching in Samba, not in code I had to
maintain in synchronization with a bug (;-))
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dav...@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
