From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com
	[74.125.82.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60022200296
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun,  5 Feb 2012 10:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werb14 with SMTP id b14so6748550wer.16
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:21:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references
	:content-type:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version;
	bh=Dse9h2j9VHZIovG487ob7qSsbw+oxK2GfMDzWUj3GAM=;
	b=rorI9CUdakJ+NwEg77Gxp3vfJx3h9h07vIP0JvF33R6wIiP42gfu/bLGg+hoAvpefS
	WSvk8fq4Uc79xDMNFxYtkKgNtKvyq33VW25iTC8qQBewscSBPZScciTWiY87QzNhlwre
	30iwPli767jqnNsIcgO8PAB+dNzFR8RU0WjMQ=
Received: by 10.216.136.96 with SMTP id v74mr2162208wei.27.1328466085369;
	Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.170.237.1] ([87.255.129.107])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dr5sm38662294wib.0.2012.02.05.10.21.23
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1328466080.14474.25.camel@edumazet-laptop>
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Justin McCann <jneilm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:21:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAFkTFa8cKedGjZBYwvfc-TJbAzEoEaQ5OXktc3EmiWHjhGsXtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw7xHNZeT-nvk63fKEwfTSO+9e_8JfOqcmjyALkcK_gPnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1325481751.2526.23.camel@edumazet-laptop>
	<CAA93jw7xUdAmtnXdr0n76sz76yFiYV687H9PNPh437JVbo8J6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA93jw6N5nwJROMUd1v3eLP3dnBH0NTaUuJOA-QT8AKQg9c+zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F046F7B.6030905@freedesktop.org>
	<CAJ2iOjTd989geZzSopO8i5A--0yM_CsDrBH_bFXBNCJwCidm=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<40C8C302-7B23-4272-8322-1D916BB0CEB2@gmail.com>
	<1328427596.14474.9.camel@edumazet-laptop>
	<CAFkTFa8cKedGjZBYwvfc-TJbAzEoEaQ5OXktc3EmiWHjhGsXtg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] What is fairness,
 anyway? was: Re: finally... winning on wired!
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:21:27 -0000

Le dimanche 05 février 2012 à 12:53 -0500, Justin McCann a écrit :

> I was thinking of suggesting this (delaying ACKs to avoid cwnd
> increase), but doesn't that simply increase the RTT and/or RTT
> variance, and basically do the same thing we're trying to avoid? I
> suppose you could delay a bit, and then drop some earlier ACKs in case
> the sender only increases cwnd per ACK (and not by the number of
> segments the ACK covers), but that per-ACK behavior just seems like a
> bug to me.

I dont think it has anything with delaying acks. Acks are immediately
sent as soon as the incoming packets are delivered to tcp stack.

Check my script, their is no filter on ACK at all.

ingress AQM delays delivering of packets of big flows, _if_ some other
flows are also present and want their part of the bandwidth.

Eventually SFQ drops packets from those big flows, and senders
automatically decrease their congestion window.

I use this kind of ingress AQM on production proxies and it actually
works.