From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 00FD03CB35 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:12:15 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1657653132; bh=i8wJFr/lCmg9Fh2Lx9DVS3JzcjmLz/kOWNEXRhk7Dvw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Dv6QilHxi9IuZntI7Oog7LbasNyGxIOaX5UeFUw1/mKNJWJzcpt9O3HL6krY3t1UL LdxPfkJ8HGceGVUNpcjUCyHTnNc5Iux4CZzch7SlDXmDeFWDdtO6Oc2/Er2Pa1J8AN j90cAzED828hKCPWRqgByMhfDWbHg5OgIXjxhTQo= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.0.97.186]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MxUrx-1nMHz8413x-00xtWJ; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 21:12:12 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 21:12:10 +0200 Cc: Michael Welzl , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6458C1E6-14CB-4A36-8BB3-740525755A95@ifi.uio.no> <7D20BEF3-8A1C-4050-AE6F-66E1B4203EE1@gmx.de> <4E163307-9B8A-4BCF-A2DE-8D7F3C6CCEF4@ifi.uio.no> <95FB54F9-973F-40DE-84BF-90D05A642D6B@ifi.uio.no> <0BAAEF4C-331B-493C-B1F5-47AA648C64F8@ifi.uio.no> <9DF7ADFC-B5FC-4488-AF80-A905FECC17E8@gmx.de> <32A9050A-B81F-4838-BE7F-691F0670DB84@gmx.de> To: David Lang X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:OjnPwstX+ShYhVxOpzyFeISxWJ/EHjaGuZ3GMt/9I5KgbJEb/PJ Z9f/hJXb+FAhSIJOG+5uPoT6o4z6gwoZdcHK3Yu3PgBOekPOuyAxcDd/MwKRY4At7iqtz8D OVhXAEpC2dA7LPpJdErcsA6e73MDSY5YRcG0/80Ty/pCynLx+NA78cbBideGBBOp+fmwz1N KnHUnZF8RPKR/6NYE2/kQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Q2ccxVrWSbI=:WX4HgC1NKH6szNVBq7ACBA t+H47HIrsxHJffXZFWs+FO7rSS64n/tF7UwnhNP8fL2SCkmWP4wDeFm7rfbZyjUv9A1iAsiQv 9ydK3w0sY8jFtRXvWGCOyzBU7PcysND9eCBn7IBKHMxPT+Jpgol815j5+zF6zpw7HHgGZmwRU 71mifpUbCBq48GO2FcJ/yyhqDSmKqc8zj9a7a5uaD4W2pqHBXJNEvTDU8WjfZAnIyENlhMF5Q oIR84G+85qrSDH1787OJMcE3AGhhVmX5xAwN4WMVwHVdrkyaI/Muv3X9DPnwJJgrLoq+k6k8y BvQMGahbWgiKjP9MKp2kZG+rUBekDphyPa9fTioGKGT6x9QiQwS/FQtDtZni0vPWNj5je0BcJ dv7VIiG/defZ+4GG/7UgBlk5NaXqoWLcMr9GzLuaHzTBGcBoDJkVaH+2Y7BWjsbwoVp47IjN3 J1OsHCaL9TH0eO5xBf2fnDhe6SdATY2EM0mgQN+bvvGg8sLIQx0mqBkH7v0RXPiZS+Kd1wdn6 NhdDsR06gz2ogyJgGbQeJMzRl37lBZkgB/uLmA4gyaS5EVGEneZVRr+pdwi6vn/Bq7mGy8zFv cP6HGwA+kRq2GKhnRhzUX2b5Y0UTfSn9rzBr8xIz8AP7qA3tAy6O3lTouB8L22HOWpXBHCo1b 6kV6oXpaatdnAr50dGq9+F8HSPUDx7PM6HvHhPjdiCzifop/Djokln2iCy/3F5018AM6Q91Zn aRcmfDVn9cNbYt5hgmctpel8skeZr9qoP2GOvIG4EPMGplsTKPZCqyToIfsaJr0F2bPfZUCUR W7mzGfnrM672pXW5xscEwkjcTsCczR/EnetrHIzTMYVH2i9Ea0T8FPkqbkuJa1oB438YfVLci XDHZ7pEL8qh1qaEs9p3MGPKkNAHMlLse0YfBAYpAQzrzMJO3JKgsoQE1kcxrQBz5k35Md1Hb6 v99+VIj/K+CIVLG/BnCIDmsoIlPRjWCg+YlM+LUT7pgB6AzRH2GJtH8Qi3k3Y8LHuYL81jWY1 NSxit8E+eMj9ljcgA+0eyuUsDtoK96w3GSOz+tEM5sxC1mVed1k9ppoY+/C1YImdkucxV07Lc y+IgfeAefld4layXmCKFsCFsfaouIEuVsA82mcSzzWpwGm0IgvDbQZI0Q== Subject: Re: [Bloat] [iccrg] Musings on the future of Internet Congestion Control 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: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 19:12:16 -0000 Hi David, Thanks! > On Jul 12, 2022, at 19:56, David Lang wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote: >=20 >>>>> There are plenty of useful things that they can do and yes, I = personally think they=E2=80=99re the way of the future - but **not** in = their current form, where they must =E2=80=9Clie=E2=80=9D to TCP, cause = ossification, >>>>=20 >>>> [SM] Here I happily agree, if we can get the nagative = side-effects removed that would be great, however is that actually = feasible or just desirable? >>>>> etc. PEPs have never been considered as part of the congestion = control design - when they came on the scene, in the IETF, they were = despised for breaking the architecture, and then all the trouble with = how they need to play tricks was discovered (spoofing IP addresses, = making assumptions about header fields, and whatnot). That doesn=E2=80=99t= mean that a very different kind of PEP - one which is authenticated and = speaks an agreed-upon protocol - couldn=E2=80=99t be a good solution. >>>>=20 >>>> [SM] Again, I agree it could in theory especially if = well-architected.=20 >>> That=E2=80=99s what I=E2=80=99m advocating. >>=20 >> [SM] Well, can you give an example of an existing = well-architected PEP as proof of principle? >=20 > the windows protocols work very poorly over high latency links (i.e. = long distance links) and the PEPs that short circuit those protocols = make life much nicer for users as well as reducing network traffic. [SM] Windows protocols, like in microsoft's server message block = (smb) protocol or as in "protocols using data windows", like TCP's = congestion and receive window? > it's a nasty protocol to start with, but it's the reality on the = ground and proxies do help a lot. [SM] Are such proxies located in third party middle = boxes/proxies or are these part of microsoft's software suite for = enterprises (assuming the first as answer to my question)? > David Lang Regards Sebastian=