From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-24-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-254-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.254]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8A22E044B for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 02:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-22-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-22-ewr.local [10.0.141.244]) by mail-24-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BEE5CCABD for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:18:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 209.85.213.171 Received: from mail-yx0-f171.google.com (mail-yx0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) by mail-24-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C2D5CE8A5 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxd30 with SMTP id 30so856375yxd.16 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:18:24 -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=3q145v9t4AzpFIiEJ0cXa32qr8YFMtT9Lt7SqZ5/tgQ=; b=Z4TZuPKYAH3VLN8EMRpjkrijQwWMWayOcjd4YLUiRqpT7aIQswc0ZY0X2ZOdNAKt63 gko3lCVLdXaR/pFqOLJzQP6Uuh1m/g88XfW5NgE+QAWn6gu63uPCWPcR+2haR36f7hXB HZnnk/RCFfCIllWWMTsjhV8e4OzVznSfkl34o= 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=HBsg9xtiPiV/Kqk8Em1fbKIOVF0H9Xf35AR9xhd2qiI9e+C/QLVWt0l3dpP3Ctxeax +Z6s1czFDvxbRdV3yZRzwjbPPznIIeouX+7RcJbHd3Ogw/lvZqMeRC8HA7znIDVcsGTt DBAdYlqTbgUZwo65JYZJd1QKtVpaWYoeKKFgI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.110.5 with SMTP id t5mr23848645yhg.8.1296814703964; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:18:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.108.41 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 02:18:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87ei7odsjl.fsf@trurl.pps.jussieu.fr> References: <87mxmcdtvh.fsf@trurl.pps.jussieu.fr> <87ei7odsjl.fsf@trurl.pps.jussieu.fr> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:18:23 +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 10:18:31 -0000 On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wr= ote: >> 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 ca= n > 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.