From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com (mail-bw0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE20C201A7A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so1877934bwz.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:43:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=fO/YDG24AFW27wYMK7G3WCrg//m4kQHWzar1qOmunCo=; b=DbBGq6WMaSY0z89f+s2oqFVZR3leiVaSH7wPGXQrUKks72hEIvm6ek5W23KNSNaOcV /tgTz07LnBbFX+Nz6KcA1yc9aj/8dGdrKJRfMNCMyiOwQ/dtIv3hDWzPYo54KcAy2BJQ CA/TwRIMVw3nEPLZLyBajBKJ5fYCTtZOv9T40= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=PrxA+YSc+AMX8GP133l174D3LGDJ3xACcABPN5k76HUbgF5+UNaaEn6k1P0n4FZpSk bwg02qGtl0IQOGCaXPUdNInOCjo7jnv7liBrjCl5wJrJlS3NCFEM2VlINxVRGnzzxFpp uZjzM8gsom+B7uBXQepxKjMrRcFH9c3+/mlV0= Received: by 10.204.74.93 with SMTP id t29mr1649478bkj.150.1303890238083; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.239.42] (xdsl-83-150-84-172.nebulazone.fi [83.150.84.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y22sm255987bku.20.2011.04.27.00.43.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:43:54 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> To: Wesley Eddy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Network computing article on bloat 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: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:43:25 -0000 On 26 Apr, 2011, at 9:32 pm, Wesley Eddy wrote: > On 4/26/2011 2:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> "Big Buffers Bad. Small Buffers Good." >>=20 >> "*Some* packet loss is essential for the correct operation of the = Internet" >>=20 >> are two of the memes I try to propagate, in their simplicity. Even >> then there are so many qualifiers to both of those that the core >> message gets lost. >=20 > The second one is actually backwards; it should be "the Internet can > operate correctly with some packet loss". I would say, more accurately, that the *potential* for packet loss is = necessary for correct Internet operation. This is the same as saying that the potential for bringing individual = trains to an unscheduled halt is necessary to allow railways to operate = safely. If one train is delayed, another train has to wait for it to = clear the junction to avoid a collision. If the brakes fail, they are = designed to bring the train to an immediate halt rather than face the = possibility of not coming to a halt when later required to. If the = signals fail, they automatically show Danger. When congestion control fails, packet loss is inevitable. Bigger = buffers - the traditional "solution" to packet loss - only delay that = fact slightly, and not even for very long. - Jonathan Morton