From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-03-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-136-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.136]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FD02E0182 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:20:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-02-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-02-ewr.local [10.0.141.224]) by mail-03-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFD178838A for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 20:20:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 71.162.243.5 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [71.162.243.5]) by mail-03-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30523787B39 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 20:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 23) id DFD0220C22E; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 15:20:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 15:20:15 -0500 From: Eric Raymond To: Jim Gettys Message-ID: <20110206202015.GA3004@thyrsus.com> References: <20110206143952.AC0CF20C22E@snark.thyrsus.com> <4D4EC2D4.2070708@freedesktop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D4EC2D4.2070708@freedesktop.org> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Eric Raymond , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Overview modifications X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:20:20 -0000 Jim Gettys : > >Change in progress -- append to the "Hating" paragraph the following > >sentence: "Lossy networks such as wireless actually show less chaotic > >behavior under load than clean ones." Is this correct and adequate? > > It's not chaotic behaviour. In fact, it is much more worrying: it > is periodic (oscillatory) behaviour. Chaos is good, in this case. Dave also says my take is wrong and is promising to suggest a correction. I have enough other stuff to do that I'll wait on that. > My nightmare, is that as traffic shifts over more and more to > saturated links as XP retires, we end up with self synchronising > behaviour on a local, regional or global scale, and havoc ensues, > and parts/all of the Internet stop working. Whether these fears are > justified, I do not know. > > Think: we may be a column of soldiers in cadence approaching a bridge... New graphs at the end of "From Highway to Network": We also have some worries about the future. For various reasons (including the gradual retirement of Windows XP) more and more Internet traffic is now running over saturated links. In this new environment, we think there is a possibility that bufferbloat cascades and defects in management strategies might produce self-synchronising behaviour in network traffic - packet floods and network resonance on a local, regional or global scale that could be a greater threat to the Internet than the congestion-driven near-collapse of the NSF backbone in 1986. This is a classic "black swan" situation in Nassim Taleb's sense; in today's Internet-dependent economy there is a potential for nearly inacalculable havoc in the worst case, but we don't even know in principle how to estimate the overall risk. Bufferbloat mitigation might keep us out of some very serious trouble, and is worth pursuing on those grounds alone. > There is an additional point: understanding bufferbloat may allow > you to avoid bufferbloat suffering immediately. Example: I think we're already noting that point fixes can be applied quickly an effectively. > There is tons of mining in the replies to my blog to do. I'll look, but that sounds like it might be getting into too much detail for the overview. -- Eric S. Raymond