From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 D921F3CB37 for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 13:37:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1716399468; x=1717004268; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=1HkOlPsrnbbIL03QtTHVPekGOG6rXgcKTHomGvOX7nY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From: In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id: References:To:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from: message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=ImSjPn7ol4kMr814f2GIO4+rL/XWCoeAcFQb02aAXk2cy1ir3S2nC8ODVW8HHIem KeAMFzCj2fZssbg5y87B02bWokdAvquwpKsRLHMj0lgaqNjWc2RKzwo8e3nzKsIfU 4XowL+4tkr9VJCnEKm2D0icQPLwDos5uSkHjPkxb+pqLHJNuHlxbsMl7dAm8fmZzM 6H2Oy3HHbM4OLRfH/fr1WhuP5OtSjzS0WIEA/txHVPoM2RCrYT/48rOarjAgl0QSN qLxPkrFs/ndW8gILFaZjMXlrRH/q9bvVn964cHJ60dZ91WvKfJBb2jORCQkVLE4zs gJ5mAzFsgqGOmTZ64Q== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.3.136.124]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MPog5-1rwRtX0OCB-00Mu5N; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:37:48 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <94F193F2-1ECA-440D-9673-576E42C47ADE@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 19:37:37 +0200 Cc: Jonathan Morton , Frantisek Borsik , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <28C0EFA5-8681-41DB-AF49-E551D1AA2A0A@gmail.com> <02D6BB37-B944-478D-947F-E08EF77A7764@comcast.com> <1B7AD485-9CEA-4F79-B6F0-F2C1B0A9355D@comcast.com> <94F193F2-1ECA-440D-9673-576E42C47ADE@gmx.de> To: "Livingood, Jason" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:YAGpYG86FTLD1lpUFDFY11uuybC4uDsJ8v89gZxyID1+49VzJgt tI98i5hP2Fb13Y6Y4rHUWgle5auArRS/xYGNFScvdUR5tXUFltjaVHQULLp2eVW+nYsCatD PC+89KLC/l2audkKzWHuktdjDtvRlvpBfQt+l50hOIyAv1jSXZGIAnXkjWbwWNplCX+POGC 07nMbMeEKrtSIkgCFrHBQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Gx16swRLn2w=;haX/7MXkEltbZGl+wFzVgwPISzt 3VS0QRXY7aW8/1p+J2P7BN1r6zoaStI66A41HDSrclU30pxkxFcYKemw8kOzoXHVKoupR1V7y SJ2H6C4T4l2bXGjahuvcgiFj9xYBu4N58bMdQR/gC6ChhrFLBqtiUkpisJzfET3Fbc9qDe+5D 9hkbDPMG/ayx8KsQx+tvipNcXazzsBDBhAzhn0rNLHPyQ5QwxhfK1Z9yS4frXdZ5wM0KvSrE0 XcSL4K54gkHBBMbXvjZBf2GU1vFNwB8x1JY5c9G9SWBoIpN6bn2+R2kcAhZwQbXKiw43H1zW0 WnX83Q8IWtBuXikWs3+GrHWEqzkeLhu3YCZvl68hZDuzpUTFOMdG65DIEDzSpmwv2MptfLY1s RQlfD1QFRXzgrE/BXxmaUMPjqQ8kMTEm0Xkz8I5h7sdCSZfqFl1uZI8SLKo6Eg3DAccJ4xyMw xd0kOxVay0O/pwwDJBsrGBsKnpP7hziEOctSCl5k85+1VNKnx2r91Xx520Vk7GbbjKQBPJHGz psVzdxg76jy411maIZkz4A9XbeHd14S6tT0CK+58N5i9uX0z9kEfDB3xgt9u2toxCoVqDhKpp nEaHWqqXYeO1UXrRGeIL6JE0k89qt1n1zWlOFYumJAudTD95aIKiweZDPOxvX0KA2nALqypHU P4EiKUFmqI32eYE3ze3P1pYbM37MLUhGjbr7K1snfEpt5YvTBueyn4SHjeNtp3xd7mQ0UTgaw /4jOK6HQgoMRKdG1wyiJkxWvvX1YPNlrUn61B5j34rjudOrQ8PVbl1Lp/9xDQVkNqiIeu56pP 1ktEB36HR8rxA2STDTbuP99pVRymEDMF2EUQvyKd/UULU= Subject: Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! " 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: Wed, 22 May 2024 17:37:54 -0000 Hi Jason let me apologise for the harsh tone. I should have been able to phrase = my point way politer, but clearly failed. I am sure your testing matrix was large enough already and tested those = conditions you considered most urgent for your use-cases. I understand that I am free to test what ever I am interested in L4S = myself. Regards Sebastian > On 22. May 2024, at 14:54, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >=20 > Hi Jason >=20 >> On 22. May 2024, at 14:27, Livingood, Jason = wrote: >>=20 >> [SM] Here is Pete's data showing that, the middle two bars show what = happens when the bottleneck is not treating TCP Prague to the expected = signalling... That is not really fit for use over the open internet... >>=20 >> [JL] That graph is not anything like what we=E2=80=99ve seen in lab = or field testing. I suspect you may have made some bad assumptions in = the simulation. >=20 >=20 > So have you actually tested 1 TCP CUBIC versus 1 TCP Prague flow over = a FIFO bottleneck with 80ms minRTT? > Then, I would appreciate if you could share that data. >=20 > My best guess is, that you did not explicitly test that (*). I expect = almost all testing used short RTTs and likely the low latency docsis = scheduler/AQM combination (essentially an implementation close to = DualQ). But I am happy to be wrong. >=20 > One of my complaints of the data presented in favor of L4S during the = ratification process was (and still is) that we got a multitude of very = similar tests all around locations n parameter space that were known to = work, while the amount od even mildly adversarial testing was miniscule. >=20 > *) As Jonathan implied the issue might be TCP Prague"s pedigree from = TCP Reno mostly, as Reno and Cubic compete similarly unequal at 80ms = RTT. To which I asked, who came up with the idea of basing TCP Prague on = Reno in the first place? Changing that now, essentially will invalidate = most previous L4S testing. See above why I do not believe this to be a = terrible loss, but just procedurally I consider than not very impressive = engineering. That aside. if this explanation is correct, the only way = for you not having encountered that dutring your tests is by not = actually testing that condition. But that in turn makes waters down the = weight of the claim "not anything like what we=E2=80=99ve seen in lab or = field testing" considerably, no? >=20 >=20 >=20