From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (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 5BB423CB39 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 02:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.20.10.2] (dynamic-046-114-003-073.46.114.pool.telefonica.de [46.114.3.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 10A7xfFd117568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Jan 2021 08:59:49 +0100 To: Jonathan Morton Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <20210110053919.GA14073@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> From: Erik Auerswald Message-ID: <3ffdcd41-ede1-c9c5-5624-4a54d3c8197b@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 08:59:40 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.005, tests=KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.25, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.255 X-Spam-Score: (-0.005) X-Spam-Flag: NO Subject: Re: [Bloat] Rebecca Drucker's talk sounds like it exposes an addressable bloat issue in Ciscos 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: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 07:59:53 -0000 Hi, On 10.01.21 08:19, Jonathan Morton wrote: >> On 10 Jan, 2021, at 7:39 am, Erik Auerswald wrote: >> >> In my experience, asking about token-bucket algorithm details is often >> a sign for the asker to not see the forest for the trees. > > IMHO, token-bucket is an obsolete algorithm that should not be used. This level of detail seems useful (use of a different class of algorithm instead of implementation details for a given algorithm class). > [...] > Many token-bucket implementations further complicate this by having two nested token-buckets. Those are the details I had in mind as not of general importance. They may matter for specific circumstances, but probably not much in the context of short TCP streams using BBR vs. bufferbloat. > [...] Thanks, Erik -- Thinking doesn't guarantee that we won't make mistakes. But not thinking guarantees that we will. -- Leslie Lamport