The phenomenon is called "lava flow", and is a classic anti-pattern
illustrated at http://antipatterns.com/lavaflow.htm
Their approach to fixing is ancient, though: there are
correctness-preserving refactorings for some of the problem space.
Alas, I don't know if middleboxes are correctable... maybe if they are
ones which only care about the IP layer?
--dave
On 04/04/18 08:45 AM, Jesper Louis Andersen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:04 PM Jim Gettys <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
To get to really good RTT's (with low jitter), you still need
fq_codel (or similar). You just can't get there by hacking TCP
no matter how hard you try...
I agree with you on all points here. However, any change which patches
an existing bad system is far more likely to win in the long run, also
if it is bad in some way. Momentum is a killer of good solutions. I
wish I had a ramification for this observation, but I currently don't.
My hunch is that every new generation of young programmers wants to
put their mark on the system. As a result, they take what worked well
on level N-1 and proceed to build N on top of it. But the beanstalk
never withers, so each level is present in said stack, still, after
all these years.
(Aside: The codel approach also has worked really well for me
internally in Erlang systems as a way to maintain queue load. Far
better than many other flow control schemes).
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
[email protected] | -- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
