From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mout.gmx.net",
	Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14DC321F301
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 01:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hms-beagle-2.lan ([134.2.89.70]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101)
	with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LraSn-1XNLxU2yrt-013Nll;
	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:30:01 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <FC82EEB0-5E7E-473F-B9B3-2BFEC06C7689@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:29:58 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4A80D1F9-F4A1-4D14-AC75-958C5A2E8168@gmx.de>
References: <CADnS-2hPmb3zt6GvdbZjDuM10VgN5yvMrxigUL5Z_-nA-dOyjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1502250737150.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
	<201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
	<mck1t7$ies$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<FC82EEB0-5E7E-473F-B9B3-2BFEC06C7689@ifi.uio.no>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:+sf51/FM9Gy69jDHQX/n4APiDvop32s9x+nz/Xr8VENqM7E1+dq
	ksFn5inArYnijKsI/ZWqWZ56Yp0mJcSAKJlF4uGcJYWdtJcXLzffhS5BZ2Iy8NAtV0sY1rf
	ORJtN9gf8EzHDTav9h3jsycio0Zq9gelCvZdwuPw4c1rVXBnIqQA22FC/DpLGI3vppsqtAm
	/8ABqzV/+81AHBCcE5ymA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Cc: Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@gmail.com>,
	"bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" <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 <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:30:49 -0000

Hi Michael,

On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:18 , Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> Two points,
>=20
> below...
>=20
> [...]
> Why exactly did you think we should have looked at asymmetric paths? =
To study what?
> ( I'm not debating that asymmetric paths play out different in =
behavior. I'm just saying that one needs to be clear about what exactly =
is being investigated, and why.)
>=20
> [...]

	I have an opinion on that: because a) asymmetric is the general =
case and symmetric the special case b) a large percentage of end-nodes =
sit behind asymmetric paths that often are the bottlenecks that cause =
the queues for AQM to act on, so any AQM better work well in that =
situation to avoid spending its live in the ivory tower ;). So to put it =
in different words, as reality has an "asymmetry bias=94 ;)=20


Best Regards=