From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "hubrelay-rd.bt.com", Issuer "Symantec Class 3 Secure Server CA - G4" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36A1B21F238 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:28:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) by EVMHR65-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:28:44 +0000 Received: from EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.196.177) by EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:28:43 +0000 Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR01-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.196.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:28:43 +0000 Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.111.112.63]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id t1PHSf66016319; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:28:41 GMT Message-ID: <201502251728.t1PHSf66016319@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:28:41 +0000 To: Alex Elsayed From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: References: <201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -1.36 () ALL_TRUSTED X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] RED against bufferbloat 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: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:29:16 -0000 Alex, At 09:31 25/02/2015, Alex Elsayed wrote: >It was less a criticism of your work itself, and more pointing out that Bob >Briscoe was applying research on symmetric paths to asymmetric paths without >questioning the applicability of its conclusions. Mea culpa. Just one ambiguous inference and the whole list explodes! When I said "The paper convinced me that ARED is good enough (in the paper's simulations it was often better than PIE or CoDel)," I didn't mean 'good enough to go ahead and deploy'. Don't worry we're testing out ARED. I meant good enough to make it the centre of my attention. (I did say "consider deploying" later in the sentence). Our ARED testing is focusing on whether there are any pathologies, rather than whether it is slightly better or worse than the perfect solution X that will takes a decade to make any difference to the majority. It's interesting that no-one picked up on the sentence "This could reduce deployment completion time from decades to a few months." I take that as a symptom that the bufferbloat list is mainly populated by implementers. If there's a nail that can't be hit with the implementation hammer, it seems it's not an interesting nail, even if it's an extremely important nail. Bob ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT