From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-13-iad.dyndns.com (mxout-019-iad.mailhop.org [216.146.32.19]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239E62E0077 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:30:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-12-iad.mailhop.org (scan-12-iad.local [10.150.0.209]) by mail-13-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881EBBDE9AE for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:30:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 24.71.223.10 Received: from idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca (idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca [24.71.223.10]) by mail-13-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEF5BDE9A0 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pd3ml3so-ssvc.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.141.149]) by pd4mo1so-svcs.prod.shaw.ca with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2011 09:29:59 -0700 X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.1 cv=uT3SUsFrUxSLMLkvWEyF5PJ45gYvcyNzEdQWRoVmi+I= c=1 sm=1 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=EvaGpPYFoCfc2jwbaD6Azw==:17 a=3dZX8JWgAAAA:8 a=b7SLfKwVAAAA:8 a=4uX3QHsATSAyYN_xfugA:9 a=7TvtjVlaD9TpysG-Wa51miAij5YA:4 a=Fw8iwiUKpeAA:10 a=TphoKWqS9HQA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Received: from unknown (HELO amd.pacdat.net) ([96.48.77.169]) by pd3ml3so-dmz.prod.shaw.ca with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2011 09:29:59 -0700 Received: from localhost ([::1]) by amd.pacdat.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pnvsc-00085Q-2g for bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:29:58 -0800 From: richard To: bloat Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:29:57 -0800 Message-Id: <1297441797.29639.8.camel@amd.pacdat.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: [Bloat] Failure to convince X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:30:02 -0000 I had an email exchange yesterday with the top routing person at a local ISP yesterday. Unlike my exchanges with non-tech people, this one ended with him saying Bufferbloat was not a problem because... "I for for one never want to see packet loss. I spent several years working on a national US IP network, and it was nothing but complaints from customers about 1% packet loss between two points. Network engineers hate packet loss, because it generates so many complaints. And packet loss punishes TCP more than deep buffers. So I'm sure that you can find a bunch of network engineers who think big buffers are bad. But the trend in network equipment in 2010 and 2011 has been even deeper buffers. Vendors starting shipping data centre switches with over 700MB of buffer space. Large buffers are needed to flatten out microbursts. But these are also intelligent buffers." His point about network people hating packet loss points up the problem we'll have with educating them and the purchasing public that at least some is necessary for TCP to function. Not having been in charge of a major backbone recently, I have to admit that my understanding of today's switching hardware was to be able to deal with everything "at wire speed" with cut-through switching, unlike the store-and-forward typical switches and routers at the consumer level. richard -- Richard C. Pitt Pacific Data Capture rcpitt@pacdat.net 604-644-9265 http://digital-rag.com www.pacdat.net PGP Fingerprint: FCEF 167D 151B 64C4 3333 57F0 4F18 AF98 9F59 DD73