On 28 Oct 2012, at 14:33, Andre Oppermann <an...@freebsd.org> wrote: > IW10 has been heavily discussed on IETF TCPM. A lot of research on > the impact has been done and the overall result has been a significant > improvement with very little downside. Linux has adopted it for quite > some time already as default setting.
I have followed the discussions at tcpm, but I did not find any conclusive evidence of the benefit of IW10. I'm sure it can help in multiple situations but, as always, there are tradeoffs. Section 6 of draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd never convinced me. > The bufferbloat issue is certainly real and should not be neglected. > However the solution to bufferbloat is not to send less packets into > the network. In fact that doesn't even make a difference simply because > other packets with take their place. Right, my point is that sending more packets in an already congested link will negatively affect the throughput / latency of the network. I'm not saying that it won't help you download a YouTube video faster, but the overall fairness of TCP will be reduced. > Buffer bloat can only be fixed > in the devices that actually do the buffering. A much discussed and > apparently good approach seems to be the Codel algorithm for active > buffer management. Are you working on CoDel? :-) Regards, -- Rui Paulo _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
