From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "tcmail83.telekom.de", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass CA 1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1D8D20104F for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.22]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 19 Aug 2011 16:59:57 +0200 Received: from HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([169.254.4.68]) by HE111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:59:57 +0200 From: To: , Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:59:56 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Bloat] Not all the world's a WAN Thread-Index: AcxdZTqJnq6tOO43QY6QOXp3dbgGbQBGKoIQ Message-ID: References: <20110818050847.GA19458@uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20110818050847.GA19458@uio.no> Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Bloat] Not all the world's a WAN 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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:05:50 -0000 > [...]so over short intervals the switch's aggregate incoming bandwidth (m= ultiple 10GbE links from > servers) is larger than its outgoing bandwidth (single 10GbE link to clie= nt). Well, this kind of burstiness is the reason why we have buffers at all. Restricting the window size limits the TCP speed and keeps it this way from= overflowing the buffer outside of bursty periods. ECN marking helps TCP to distinguish between really available bandwidth and= 'fake' bandwidth that just fills up a buffer, at least if the feedback loo= p is fast enough. Do ethernet switches support ECN marking?