Re: [Bloat] Bloat on Layer 2 Was: ECN & AQM Hall of Fame?

[d@taht.net (Dave Täht)]

"Richard Scheffenegger" <rscheff@gmx.at> writes:

> BTW, I found this legacy document, where the authors boldly claim that
> more buffers are always better for 802.11 networks, to circumvent
> costly TCP congestion control decisions....
> http://csl.snu.ac.kr/~ecpark/papers/TCP_WLAN_TMC08.pdf


Citing Section 3.2

"Effect of the Maximum Congestion Window Size on Fairness and
Utilization"

 "Based on the observation of asymmetric behavior of TCP congestion
 control shown in Figs. 2 and 4, we can infer that the unfairness
 problem can be alleviated by preventing packet loss from occurring. We
 can avoid packet loss due to buffer overflow by either making the
 buffer size, B, sufficiently large or by restricting the maximum
 congestion window size, Wmax . In this section, we study the effect of
 Wmax on fairness and aggregate throughput. We set B = 50 packets and
 Wmax = 10..80 packets."

I would love it if they could re-run their simulation setting "B"
according to the buffer sizes for wireless devices we are now seeing in
the field, which are in the 128..1500 packet range (not counting
retries!), under poor radio conditions.

-- 
Dave Taht
http://nex-6.taht.net