Re: [Bloat] [tsvwg] quick review and rant of "Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link"

[Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>]

I was thinking about the web. You’re right about all the rest.

Cheers
Michael


Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:37, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Michael Welzl wrote:
> 
>>> On 29 Oct 2018, at 05:02, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Greg:
>>> I don't feel like commenting much on ietf matters these days
>>> but, jeeze,
>> 
>> (snip)
>> 
>> There seems to me to be a disconnect here, the core of which is this comment:
>> 
>> 
>>> Did I rant already that the vast majority of flows are non-saturating?
>> 
>> That's a bug, not a feature - and you seem to treat it as an unchangeable fact.
> 
> Why would you think that saturating flows should be common? A very large percentage of Internet traffic is streaming audio/video and that should never saturate a link, it should be pacing the data to the rate of the content.
> 
> DNS queries are not going to be saturating.
> 
> queries to check cache validity are not going to be saturating.
> 
> microservices calls (including most IoT data) and their replies are not going to be saturating, in part because they don't have much to say, and in part because even if they do have more to say, they aren't going to ramp up to high packet rates before they run out of data to send.
> 
> It's only bulk transfers of data that are possibly going to be saturating, and they are only going to saturate their allowed share of the slowest link in the path. On all other links they are going to be non-saturating.
> 
> As links get faster, things that would have been saturating years ago fail to saturate the new, faster links.
> 
> So what would the Internet look like if it didn't have the vast majority of flows being non-saturating?
> 
> David Lang
>