From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (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 D80383B29E for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-mx01.uio.no ([129.240.10.26]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gIIOB-00090S-Te; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:12:19 +0100 Received: from 58.116.34.95.customer.cdi.no ([95.34.116.58] helo=[10.0.0.4]) by mail-mx01.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gIIO6-0003Nh-Se; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:12:19 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Michael Welzl X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15D100) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 20:12:11 +0100 Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net, tsvwg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <878t2h1jtm.fsf@taht.net> To: David Lang X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx01.uio.no: 95.34.116.58 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=95.34.116.58; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=[10.0.0.4]; X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: 5C83519E758A6CA0A6D3DF6E7A8702CA8F585289 Subject: Re: [Bloat] [tsvwg] quick review and rant of "Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link" 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: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:12:23 -0000 I was thinking about the web. You=E2=80=99re right about all the rest. Cheers Michael Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:37, David Lang wrote: >=20 > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Michael Welzl wrote: >=20 >>> On 29 Oct 2018, at 05:02, Dave Taht wrote: >>=20 >>> Dear Greg: >>> I don't feel like commenting much on ietf matters these days >>> but, jeeze, >>=20 >> (snip) >>=20 >> There seems to me to be a disconnect here, the core of which is this comm= ent: >>=20 >>=20 >>> Did I rant already that the vast majority of flows are non-saturating? >>=20 >> That's a bug, not a feature - and you seem to treat it as an unchangeable= fact. >=20 > Why would you think that saturating flows should be common? A very large p= ercentage 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. >=20 > DNS queries are not going to be saturating. >=20 > queries to check cache validity are not going to be saturating. >=20 > microservices calls (including most IoT data) and their replies are not go= ing to be saturating, in part because they don't have much to say, and in pa= rt 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > As links get faster, things that would have been saturating years ago fail= to saturate the new, faster links. >=20 > So what would the Internet look like if it didn't have the vast majority o= f flows being non-saturating? >=20 > David Lang >=20