From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D88193B2A4 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id v13so1224876wrw.5 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 02:00:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=iFIU8p9RNjxvHGGjmSTRQqtcUKbk9HhytYp8O52erVM=; b=IgHwh8KVtwgfb8f6BxRuMTpLuDU4v4rSuHUTOhi8NgBSV+6BfQt0KugPT09C2LsoHW G1jLiJIPNADqSgbfGbs07PZ16HM7fabjwmAExzZImvjdon1DrpBN43r6x805+S8kC9LL FiN0CM/Lzyfvd0Q8OKiEhI/I/zFx9RazlJkamIKCeZ6tN4hNybsSHZRL6da1+XxTiY+D DHPmp+z8Fhs9Q17aFrNNxu3P3jiBUes882Jt3jUUdyP0+v9l0rBOhwyeRB6fRLv7mCLY U4+f/ZBww1Der+JTQDYDWTG0Y7QwusAztmyMgL4XqYPqFN0878TS6h3fZR6Cftj32i0F yYSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=iFIU8p9RNjxvHGGjmSTRQqtcUKbk9HhytYp8O52erVM=; b=L00/kWoW5oWfTNsTOcWwmCyGhdT40gnTwlXlqTfGdxdlqKsboq2p/gnwfsbmjM/dvF 6IJ9daPZgAaIpFAFWwgndHwSCkuQ4/Lvm3J9s73hEBSaoIZRrmxcnsz6wq+6YyYOmCIs Lr9z9uvBocOYzTqjytEBYHz7SidBfYLVZRhpW4X+GYBJEnrQXViATsHgVNhc5KDNhRt1 zHhRORJdLF6nfdN4Ho+n584yKUOEc7A6tV/pJSx8qHS7xglPIGx8YEdOaA2Cm/UeQNMs RYxicOe2WochmbnJR2mIs5QcsbaME58KSV+hPA3vj6Faop+hVEkMzQszaMt+IAvbwVlB HN+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWa/CRFaQR38tfGOkudFGfp7mh/VfNMixu4U8f2V2HlZAOa45wZJ TTijrMcv7NOZWAeN4FgPwwelKw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UBBAObPtWtHs7BQXl2a+gjl05Q8vgdLdsxWgwJUS1t5EXbtR5zBMPzQZvN7TdQpXB/ZlK7aA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6b09:: with SMTP id v9mr831944wrw.304.1543485617935; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 02:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tron.luk.heistp.net (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l20sm1252043wrb.93.2018.11.29.02.00.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 02:00:17 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Heist Message-Id: <58932C55-0A3F-4206-8F8F-841D6BF625D9@heistp.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E0D0D83-FB91-46B8-96E3-ADAA61E10463" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:00:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87h8g0wd71.fsf@taht.net> Cc: bloat To: Dave Taht References: <65EAC6C1-4688-46B6-A575-A6C7F2C066C5@heistp.net> <87h8g0wd71.fsf@taht.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Bloat] when does the CoDel part of fq_codel help in the real world? 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:00:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8E0D0D83-FB91-46B8-96E3-ADAA61E10463 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > This whole thread, although diversive... well, I'd really like = everybody > to get together and try to write a joint paper on the best stuff to = do, > worldwide, to make bufferbloat go away. +1 I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s an accident that a discussion around = CoDel evolved into a discussion around TCP. If newer TCP CC algorithms can eliminate self-induced bloat, it should = still be possible for queue management to handle older TCP = implementations and extreme cases while not damaging newer TCPs. Beyond = that, there may be areas where queue management can actually enhance the = performance of newer TCPs. For starters, there=E2=80=99s what happens = within an RTT, which I suppose can=E2=80=99t be dealt with in the TCP = stack, and referring back to one of Jon=E2=80=99s messages from 11/27, = the possibility for improved signaling from AQM back to TCP on the state = of the queue. Global coordination could make this work better. p.s.- Apologies for it taking me longer than an RTT to re-read the = original CoDel papers and think through some implications. My original = question might have been smarter.= --Apple-Mail=_8E0D0D83-FB91-46B8-96E3-ADAA61E10463 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On = Nov 29, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net> wrote:

This whole thread, although = diversive... well, I'd really like everybody
to get together and try to write = a joint paper on the best stuff to do,
worldwide, to make bufferbloat go away.

+1

I = don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s an accident that a discussion around = CoDel evolved into a discussion around TCP.

If newer TCP CC algorithms can = eliminate self-induced bloat, it should still be possible for queue = management to handle older TCP implementations and extreme cases while = not damaging newer TCPs. Beyond that, there may be areas where queue = management can actually enhance the performance of newer TCPs. For = starters, there=E2=80=99s what happens within an RTT, which I suppose = can=E2=80=99t be dealt with in the TCP stack, and referring back to one = of Jon=E2=80=99s messages from 11/27, the possibility for improved = signaling from AQM back to TCP on the state of the queue. Global = coordination could make this work better.

p.s.- Apologies for it taking me longer = than an RTT to re-read the original CoDel papers and think through some = implications. My original question might have been = smarter.
= --Apple-Mail=_8E0D0D83-FB91-46B8-96E3-ADAA61E10463--