From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (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 E98933CBB5 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:24:22 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1456694660; bh=lrtKplcvMyG7SFidHMA8LpdPT6rthC78c6MTAu4ofyA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=l+5XQeJudaOLEH8UpK48OKpFfJFLEiHLuqzW3m5HweVNy5Yk2ijVQaw1qcJgF8ddq PDetBlHQiH68wnbGo6Ch4xkhVtP0zYL+6Xo4y7ql/fC/LGX+E/4ufjznUv5pUnl6Hd WYH5jQKvnIcFvErnXUAXsRuCPjL+SnkWILYbqllI= Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3B93162ED39; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 22:24:19 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Alan Jenkins Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <56BB8F05.2030006@mti-systems.com> <56D1F349.6040601@taht.net> <87egbx54zf.fsf@toke.dk> <56D303A6.4050302@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 22:24:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <56D303A6.4050302@gmail.com> (Alan Jenkins's message of "Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:26:46 +0000") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87a8mk5y0s.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Bloat] review: Deployment of RITE mechanisms, in use-case trial testbeds report part 1 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: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:24:23 -0000 Alan Jenkins writes: >> Exactly. And note how they just so happen to pick 11 total flows (10 >> competing, one video) to share the bottleneck, putting the per-flow >> throughput just below the rate needed to go up one quality level. What a >> coincidence. At least it shows how difficult it is to design experiments >> that put fairness queueing in a bad light ;) > Ug. I try not to assume malice. It does indeed come across as > motivated absence of curiosity. Oh, didn't necessarily mean it was malicious. Can totally picture the discussion landing on 10 competing flows (a nice round number). However, it does just so happen to result in there being a bit too little bandwidth for the 2Mbps video flow... -Toke