From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omr9.networksolutionsemail.com (omr9.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.59]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8859201A66 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr7 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr9.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3QKLABg022007 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:21:10 -0400 Authentication-Results: cm-omr7 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com Received: from [95.211.13.33] ([95.211.13.33:35564] helo=[10.6.0.18]) by cm-omr7 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 5A/09-19066-43927BD4; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:21:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4DB72934.9050700@mti-systems.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:21:08 -0400 From: Wesley Eddy Organization: MTI Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Taht References: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:20:49 -0000 On 4/26/2011 3:37 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM, 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". >> > INCORRECT. > > See? We can't win, even amongst ourselves. > > The Internet *cannot operate correctly without packet loss*. > > RFC970, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc970.html > Operating with infinite storage and operating without packet loss are two different things. Ideally, you may have a path with ample bandwidth such that packet losses don't occur and all connections are either application limited or receive window limitedand congestion control never kicks in. In this case, there's no loss and the Internet clearly works. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems