From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-02-iad.dyndns.com (mxout-067-iad.mailhop.org [216.146.32.67]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E477D2E044B for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 02:23:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-02-iad.mailhop.org (scan-02-iad.local [10.150.0.207]) by mail-02-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6DC833FDC for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:23:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 74.125.83.43 Received: from mail-gw0-f43.google.com (mail-gw0-f43.google.com [74.125.83.43]) by mail-02-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707B6833F7B for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwb17 with SMTP id 17so850525gwb.16 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:23:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YpvtFe5ZofCGKsEJ8vQJZzLc825Mironn19ss3TYKls=; b=PVTY66vIB5YU60V18QUe/a4d6BiIaWFY7x1X8T2qC3gS2zIUwJ2Nj8YszGrK4T6CTk 6y8++secNGiTuE63UEvzya8QxMykY9Tkt7O0YnV0evEOmE9U8e7bzvdD3d7kDtvl9R8X Xp8SOKLfyZ/hDL9Ls9j8g4gQuD9Y8qkeZO0+U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dGsSwTzm168YkrljERIp1UM7orVx/IF9VnsFWeuBO+Qz2ygSDF9XMrbl42fxSsPhne XFVYt5c57mu8azUF0O8SNAMyFmj3cltNEGsQS3mzBnmrDelDNM0RhrVvDIaPHprJw/CM RbZkJJDa3pxKeswl1Si3oH3+RoeXhL6k+dEv0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.110.2 with SMTP id t2mr17530935yhg.34.1296815013943; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:23:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.108.41 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 02:23:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87mxmcdtvh.fsf@trurl.pps.jussieu.fr> <87ei7odsjl.fsf@trurl.pps.jussieu.fr> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:23:33 +0100 Message-ID: From: Luca Dionisi To: bufferbloat list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] =?iso-8859-1?q?About_LEDBAT=2C_=B5TP_and_BitTorrent?= 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, 04 Feb 2011 10:23:39 -0000 On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Luca Dionisi wrot= e: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek = wrote: >>> I think that the 2 things have to be carried on independently, >> >> Yes. >> >>> The problem is that one cannot make sure that end users will act >>> fairly, by adjusting their sending rate. =A0The only way to do this is >>> dropping packets, so that they are obliged to send again. >> >> Well, the issues of increased delay and greedy, unresponsive flows are, >> to a certain extent, distinct. =A0One can image AQMs that are only >> concerned with penalising unresponsive flows but don't do anything to >> reduce buffer size when all flows are well-behaved. =A0Conversely, one c= an >> imagine solving the buffer bloat problem on the assumption that all >> flows are TCP-friendly. > > I don't get it. Why do we need to make such an assumption? > If the routers keep a low buffer size (better if dynamically, if I am > correct) and much better if they *also* implement a AQM which > rate-limit the unresponsive flows, then we will have almost solved the > problem and *also* actually discouraged unfair behavior from clients. > Ah, I got. You say that if routers penalize unresponsive flows than we discourage unfair behavior. Ok. But then, since we must enable routers to use AQM, why not also make them reduce their buffer size. Anyway, the end-to-end solution alone is not sufficient.