From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail83c25.carrierzone.com (mail117c25.carrierzone.com [64.29.147.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DC573B2A4 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 19:38:36 -0400 (EDT) X-POP-User: hmurray@megapathdsl.net Feedback-ID: hmurray@megapat Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by mail83c25.carrierzone.com (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id xA2NcXew026165 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 23:38:35 +0000 Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79936406074; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:38:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3 To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net cc: Hal Murray From: Hal Murray Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 16:38:33 -0700 Message-Id: <20191102233833.79936406074@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=d6OLNirE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=OWgXOY7Tc8w5m7k7nGX6Zw==:117 a=OWgXOY7Tc8w5m7k7nGX6Zw==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=MeAgGD-zjQ4A:10 a=6gdqbwDzOF8HNZ6PU7YA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=pHzHmUro8NiASowvMSCR:22 a=6VlIyEUom7LUIeUMNQJH:22 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090202.5DBE137B.0035, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 Subject: Re: [Bloat] bbr on slashdot X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 23:38:36 -0000 Sebastian Moeller said: > Interestingly, the naive expectation in the vice text is equal sharing > between all concurrent flows, if only we had a system that could actually > help achieving this kind of set-up that is fair to each flow... Is there consensus on what a flow is? Or what the unit of traffic that fairness measures should be? It seems to me that it depends on where you are located. Consider upstream traffic: If I'm a workstation or server, I probably want to give equal weight to each connection. If I'm an exit router at a residence, I probably want to give equal weight to each IP Address. If not, pigs can game the system by making multiple connections. But if I have a server, maybe I want to reserve or limit the bandwidth it gets - reserve to keep the workstation/laptop traffic from killing the server and limit so the workstation/laptop people can get some work done when the server is busy. If I'm an ISP customer facing router, I probably want to give equal weight to each customer, probably scaled by how much bandwidth they are paying for. I don't know how to handle backbone routers. You probably want to treat each customer as a flow, again scaled by how much bandwidth they are paying for. But an IP level packet doesn't tell you anything about which customer it came from. If this is old news, please point me at a good writeup. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.