From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 401A821F455 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XVNob-0003xM-Vb; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:47:17 +0200 Received: from 25.71.202.84.customer.cdi.no ([84.202.71.25] helo=[192.168.0.104]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XVNob-0004J8-GH; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:47:17 +0200 References: <20140920090316.GA25876@sesse.net> <0878F265-DDEA-416F-A54C-7B860A9C3A31@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <0878F265-DDEA-416F-A54C-7B860A9C3A31@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6621FB1D-F556-4485-B18B-B376441EEEC1@ifi.uio.no> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D201) From: Michael Welzl Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:47:13 +0200 To: Jonathan Morton X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 5 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 20420 max rcpts/h 44 ratelimit 0 X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: DBF5A57AD820ECD854C14AE586AAB86D5F37DF23 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 84.202.71.25 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 313 max/h 7 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] I feel an urge to update this 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: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:47:49 -0000 fwiw: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sallantin-iccrg-initial-spreading-01.t= xt Sent from my iPhone > On 20. sep. 2014, at 17:55, Jonathan Morton wrote:= >=20 >=20 >> On 20 Sep, 2014, at 12:03 pm, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >>=20 >>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 02:33:06AM +0300, Dave Taht wrote: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-iw10-considered-harmful-00 >>=20 >> The pedant in me wants to point out that 4 -> 10 is not =E2=80=9C2.5 time= s worse=E2=80=9D, >> but =E2=80=9C2.5 times as bad=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9C1.5 times worse=E2=80=9D= (just as 4 -> 5 is =E2=80=9C20% worse=E2=80=9D, >> =E2=80=9C0.2 times worse=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9C1.2 times as bad=E2=80=9D).= >=20 > ISTR seeing some concrete test data showing that IW10 doesn't even work as= designed, unless TCP pacing of some type is used to spread out the burst. T= hat's *despite* bloated buffers. Really puts the nail in the coffin, if you= ask me. >=20 > The recent work on SQM could be added to the list of mitigation measures. = Also, by keeping inter-flow latency low, it greatly reduces the original mo= tivation for IW10 in the first place. >=20 > - Jonathan Morton > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat