Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:38:02PM +0200, Michael Welzl wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 4 Apr 2018, at 21:23, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > > Dave Taht wrote: > >> How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. > >

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 01:06:22PM +0200, Luca Muscariello wrote: > I'm aware of this one. The last time I checked Linux patches seemed to be > abandoned. > Hit ratio could be v v low if you remove UDP encap. Look at IPSEC. And SCTP. > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

Sent from my iPhone > On 4 Apr 2018, at 21:23, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Dave Taht wrote: >> How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. > > I disagree. > > IETF has lore says that it doesn't do APIs well, and so it's a

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

Dave Taht wrote: > How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. I disagree. IETF has lore says that it doesn't do APIs well, and so it's a self-fullfiling prophecy. Everyone knows it's true without any actual evidence, so nobody tries. Who does

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

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...

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:04 PM Jim Gettys 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

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

I'm aware of this one. The last time I checked Linux patches seemed to be abandoned. Hit ratio could be v v low if you remove UDP encap. Look at IPSEC. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Luca Muscariello wrote: > > And yes, flow

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Luca Muscariello wrote: And yes, flow queueing, absolutely. Flow isolation, becomes fundamental is such a zoo, or jungle. There was talk in IETF about a transport protocol that was proposed to do a lot of things TCP doesn't do, but still retain some things that has been

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

I'm looking at TAPS too as I'm looking for a general transport API other than TCP/UDP. The kind of transport services we have developed in here https://git.fd.io/cicn/ do not fit in the current API. Full user land implementation, which seems to be accepted nowadays, but not at all a few years

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Michael Welzl wrote: well - they have been refusing too long to do them at all. i guess that’s part of the problem It's not about refusing to do so, it's because other SDOs have told the IETF not to. If IETF tries to touch POSIX, the SDO that does POSIX doesn't

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Dave Taht wrote: How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. POSIX nowadays is http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ My take on it is that the IETF should not be scared to do APIs, even though there is a lot of resistance still.

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

well - they have been refusing too long to do them at all. i guess that’s part of the problem Sent from my iPhone > On 4 Apr 2018, at 09:42, Dave Taht wrote: > > How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 9:14 AM Michael

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 9:14 AM Michael Welzl wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Jesper Louis Andersen < > jesper.louis.ander...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Michael Welzl

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Michael Welzl wrote: Sure, when you’re in control of both ends of a connection, you can build whatever you want on top of UDP - but there’s a lot of wheel re-inventing there. Really, the transport layer can’t change as long as applications (or their libraries) are exposed

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

> On Apr 3, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Jesper Louis Andersen > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Michael Welzl > wrote: > please, please, people, take a look at the ietf taps (“transport services”) > working

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Michael Welzl wrote: > please, please, people, take a look at the ietf taps (“transport > services”) working group :-) > > I tried looking it up. It seems the TAPS WG is about building a consistent interface to different protocols in order to

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

please, please, people, take a look at the ietf taps (“transport services”) working group :-) Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Apr 2018, at 14:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Jonathan Morton wrote: >> >> notwithstanding). In the end, people have kept

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Jonathan Morton wrote: notwithstanding). In the end, people have kept reinventing "reliable datagram" protocols on top of UDP, whenever they ran up against requirements that TCP didn't fulfil. Yes, for multiple reasons. TCP is ossified and typically lives in the OS,

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

> On 3 Apr, 2018, at 2:54 pm, Jesper Louis Andersen > wrote: > > Apart from that, it seems like a lot of things are being done correctly. I > *much* prefer a message-based protocol where packets use protobufs in many > scenarios over a stream-oriented

Re: [Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:47 PM David Collier-Brown wrote: > This is not an initiative I know about, but it mentions Reno and it's > inability to use SACK, so it sounds at first hearing to be another dumb > gamer thing. Opinions, anyone? > Pure guess: They are not trying to

[Bloat] Seen in passing: mention of Valve's networking scheme and RFC 5348

This is  not an initiative I know about, but it mentions Reno and it's inability to use SACK, so it sounds at first hearing to be another dumb gamer thing. Opinions, anyone? --dave (I used to work for World Gaming) c-b Forwarded Message Subject:Four short links: 2