Hi Jonathan,


> On Jun 5, 2018, at 21:31, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Jun, 2018, at 9:34 pm, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> The rationale for that decision still is valid, at low bandwidth every 
>> opportunity to send a packet matters…
> 
> Yes, which is why the DRR++ algorithm is used to carefully choose which flow 
> to send a packet from.

Well, but look at it that way, the longer the traversal path after the cake 
instance the higher the probability that the packet gets dropped by a later 
hop. So on ingress we in all likelihood already passed the main bottleneck (but 
beware of the local WLAN quality) on egress most of the path is still ahead of 
us. 

> 
>> …and every packet being transferred will increase the queued packets delay 
>> by its serialization delay.
> 
> This is trivially true, but has no effect whatsoever on inter-flow induced 
> latency, only intra-flow delay, which is already managed adequately well by 
> an ECN-aware sender.

        I am not sure that I am getting your point, at 0.5Mbps every full-MTU 
packet will hog the line foe 20+ milliseconds, so all other flows will incur at 
least that 20+ ms additional latency, this is independent of inter- or 
intra-flow perspective, no?.

> 
> May I remind you that Cake never drops the last packet in a flow subqueue due 
> to AQM action, but may still apply an ECN mark to it.  

        I believe this not dropping is close to codel's behavior? 

> That's because dropping a tail packet carries a risk of incurring an RTO 
> before retransmission occurs, rather than "only" an RTT delay.  Both RTO and 
> RTT are always greater than the serialisation delay of a single packet.

        Thanks for the elaboration; clever! But dropping a packet will 
instantaneous free bandwidth for other flows independent of whether the sender 
has already realized that fact; sure the flow with the dropped packet will not 
as smoothly revover from the loss as it would deal with ECN signaling, but tat 
is not the vintage point from which I am looking at the issue here..

> 
> Which is why ECN remains valuable even on very low-bandwidth links.

        Well, I guess I should revisit that and try to get some data at low 
bandwidths, but my hunch still is that 
> 
> - Jonathan Morton
> 

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Reply via email to