From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A9F9201A83 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69BB2189F; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:56:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=lnEinvWoU0qvhRn/sS4eCVgJ/bA=; b=r6r2nc39xLzky5nrdYnA0Xkkp8Mbmnh3DRXZsWiUGS7MeLW37727pT26H++1On5RULVygQzblQpMcF0XeeSe19LqK4zu9YUKL5j8rk/gcLZJK9XsJin8ekGMKf9mbpAHgUonZAcUJLhQ6EzdjIb8whCvkfMjPcGrz4LJ6U0MR9M= X-Sasl-enc: F4hQp/YQEtXmK8KM3qgHjrik1bBN9FPrE/Gw/AQzl77+ 1304178997 Received: from khazad-dum.debian.net (unknown [201.82.75.10]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61862445802; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.khazad-dum.debian.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DABCE1B89; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:56:35 -0300 (BRT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at khazad-dum.debian.net Received: from khazad-dum.debian.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (khazad-dum2.khazad-dum.debian.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id T52PZrtlheJH; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:56:33 -0300 (BRT) Received: by khazad-dum.debian.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BC858E20CC; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:56:33 -0300 (BRT) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:56:33 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: Wesley Eddy Message-ID: <20110430155633.GA10641@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Network computing article on bloat 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: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:54:29 -0000 On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Wesley Eddy wrote: > On 4/26/2011 2:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > >"Big Buffers Bad. Small Buffers Good." > > > >"*Some* packet loss is essential for the correct operation of the Internet" > > > >are two of the memes I try to propagate, in their simplicity. Even > >then there are so many qualifiers to both of those that the core > >message gets lost. > > > The second one is actually backwards; it should be "the Internet can > operate correctly with some packet loss". Right now in the real world, it CANNOT operate correctly WITHOUT the use of aggressive packet loss to throttle back flows, or the queues just fill up to the brink, and then you start dropping all packets anyway. IMO, Dave's wodring get that point across a lot better. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh