From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-03-iad.dyndns.com (mxout-116-iad.mailhop.org [216.146.32.116]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB722E034F for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:35:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-02-iad.mailhop.org (scan-02-iad.local [10.150.0.207]) by mail-03-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8649E8330F3 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:35:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 75.145.127.229 Received: from gw.co.teklibre.org (75-145-127-229-Colorado.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [75.145.127.229]) by mail-03-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7150832E45 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cruithne.co.teklibre.org (unknown [IPv6:2002:4b91:7fe5:1::20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cruithne.co.teklibre.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by gw.co.teklibre.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AC6E5EA1D for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:35:20 -0700 (MST) Received: by cruithne.co.teklibre.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A3A7122128; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:35:18 -0700 (MST) From: d@taht.net (Dave =?utf-8?Q?T=C3=A4ht?=) To: "Richard Scheffenegger" Organization: Teklibre - http://www.teklibre.com References: <208F592F3F104C89AA0135E5F02B2241@srichardlxp2> <20110131084108.GB29944@hydra.gt.owl.de> <4D46C44F.8000406@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:35:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Richard Scheffenegger's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:36:00 +0100") Message-ID: <87sjw9asdl.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bloat on Layer 2 Was: ECN & AQM Hall of Fame? 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: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:35:29 -0000 "Richard Scheffenegger" 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