From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <davehart@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wy0-f171.google.com (mail-wy0-f171.google.com
	[74.125.82.171]) (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 3D3D8201A46
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so1013598wyb.16
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references
	:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=R6km79J4a9pEjCoeshbDJMTE1U14e7nVL3pr7YFiy+Q=;
	b=gProXssY0nX+t6D8d0kPFalNF0mh22oqEweyWJT+eMRG48ORR9fHDiQyk3DEutBNQs
	qNVUvRBu8Zm9okYUVC4tSFNcU8bvwsXy/G4MtY5DQctZqpARqxwSsUC1Ak4QC3wBqGuq
	cWrz2C0QVDCSvAVY0GF4qj8S11kWf8ih+pUJs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
	:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	b=S+tXO7+EVsb4CmuqwJgy+n/hDv9sda6hAt9/m02YRsg1Q/G0W6SY5bNLFydXlIudZ7
	y0jj2CK5uv54krNHPt3ZXc2c7qWMWVVjYW1xtv5TDRpjZeyiyPA5IZsVuErd/spZz9dr
	RJ6nLZUiT5Q/pRL1GlxFrusLB4t9YwJzMWXLc=
Received: by 10.227.166.15 with SMTP id k15mr1100238wby.204.1303841614136;
	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.21.218 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=9Kgz4kXRzK_KC9LpSDBEoVQiseg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=9Kgz4kXRzK_KC9LpSDBEoVQiseg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Hart <davehart@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:13:14 +0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=pOCQRdUA3_-_=q+m27H526rWK7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bloat <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
Reply-To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:13:17 -0000

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 17:05 UTC, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not bad, although I can live without the title. Coins a new-ish phrase
> "insertion latency"
>
> http://www.networkcomputing.com/end-to-end-apm/bufferbloat-and-the-collapse-of-the-internet.php

The piece ends with a paragraph claiming preventing packet loss is
addressing a more fundamental problem which contributes to
bufferbloat.  As long as the writer and readers believe packet loss is
an unmitigated evil, the battle is lost.  More encouraging would have
been a statement that packet loss is preferable to excessive queueing
and a required TCP feedback signal when ECN isn't in play.

Cheers,
Dave Hart