On 11/2/16 11:21 AM, Klatsky, Carl wrote:
>> 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.
The scenario as I constructed it was emulating a sender on "home" side
of the link, using BBR and cubic through an emulated cablemodem running pie.
Silly question, but the single queue AQM was also operating in the in
sender to receiver direction for this test, yes?
> ___
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
