From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF9C03B2F9 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id u3JH3d5D015720; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:03:39 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18776210E; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:03:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id kAiruK00axG5; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:03:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F59062115; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:03:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:03:38 +0200 Message-ID: <878u098r9x.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Dave Taht Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" , bloat In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:03:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 571664EB.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 571664EB.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 571664EB.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Subject: Re: [Bloat] A bit of history on RFC970 and RFC896 from john nagle 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: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:03:43 -0000 > The classic solution, from X.25, was an accumulation timer with a human > response time sized delay. That's a bad idea, but unfortunately the > people who put in delayed ACKs didn't know that. They were trying to > fix TELNET responsiveness at Berkeley, which was using a large number of > dumb terminals connected to terminal servers at the time. Delayed ACKs > with a fixed timer are useful in that situation, and in few others. Nagle has made this point repeatedly, and it's a convincing one. Is anyone working on improving the delack algorithm? > Bufferbloat is only bad if the queuing is FIFO-dumb. It's fine to have > lots of queue space if you manage it well. Noted. -- Juliusz