From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Received: from g4t3426.houston.hp.com (g4t3426.houston.hp.com [15.201.208.54])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.hp.com",
	Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Secure Server CA - G3" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 915D521F359
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:08:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from g9t2301.houston.hp.com (g9t2301.houston.hp.com [16.216.185.78])
	by g4t3426.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C9EC5
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:08:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [16.103.148.51] (tardy.usa.hp.com [16.103.148.51])
	by g9t2301.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A3D71
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:08:42 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <54F0C0B9.9070702@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:08:41 -0800
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
References: <435DDB48-33B9-400A-ACE3-CD29C50CF6E3@netapp.com>
	<CAJq5cE2U8v=fpwdQQuTfdtZqQH7y=m5MfaQbd=MN+Sfqb6oFWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJq5cE2U8v=fpwdQQuTfdtZqQH7y=m5MfaQbd=MN+Sfqb6oFWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Packet loss in FCC press release
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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:09:12 -0000

On 02/27/2015 07:47 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> It's not ideal, but I'm not quite as worried about that as you might be.
> There are several potential causes of packet loss in a network, and
> increasing buffer sizes is only likely to have a minor and temporary
> effect on one of them.
>
> Meanwhile, increased deployment of ECN would permit adding AQM as a
> means to decrease packet loss.
>
> Random packet loss due to poor quality lines, and also due to dumb
> policers and overloaded core routers, is probably what's intended here.

Between having been raised in DC, and a wise old engineer teaching me 
the correct spelling is ass-u-me, I would suggest getting explicit 
clarification from the FCC is warranted.

rick jones