On Sun, 7 Jul 2013, [email protected] wrote:
So when somebody "throws that in your face", just confidently use the words "Bullshit, show me evidence", and ignore the ignorant person who
Oh, the people that have told me this are definitely not ignorant. Quite the contrary.
... and by the way, they're optimising for the case where a single TCP flow from a 10GE connected host is traversing a 10G based backbone, and they want this single TCP session to use every spare capacity the network has to give. Not 90% of available capcity, but 100%.
This is the kind of people that have a lot of influence and causes core routers to get designed with 600 ms of buffering (well, latest generation ones are down to 50ms buffering). We're talking billion dollar investments by hardware manufacturers. We're talking core routers of latest generation that are still being put into production as we speak.
Calling them ignorant and trying to wave them off by that kind of reasonsing isn't productive. Why not just implement the high RTT testing part and prove that you're right instead of just saying you're right?
THe bufferbloat initiative is trying to change how things are done. Burden of proof is here. When I participate in IETF TCP WG, they talk goodput. They're not talking latency and interacting well with UDP based interactive streams. They're optimising goodput. If we want buffers to be lower, we need to convince people that this doesn't hugely affect goodput.
I have not so far seen tests with FQ_CODEL with a simulated 100ms extra latency one-way (200ms RTT). They might be out there, but I have not seen them. I encourage these tests to be done.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
