From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com (mail-iy0-f171.google.com
	[209.85.210.171]) (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 7604A201A5A
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iyi20 with SMTP id 20so1156506iyi.16
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
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:cc:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=h2jrEU+evXNYD7q3oHknRwUD3EE8BKUY4unfRSaMKc4=;
	b=U/14Z2ZpJ/T1RNx2e9ssdBOYtsnMGZ0bcJdJN+pbnzyy0ceDI6lLjSNvZ6f8PhKRYQ
	5eB1t64WgJzSWAYLeH6nLOldgNE5xvz6efXTX+3gH81DzvIiEo6FOw9/+UFp7d57rJDO
	ma+Ioprfz6cQMitNYMW4/RHHVGbp7WEqI+P8Y=
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
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=NWLF8Z8SkrZ9guGi50Js1j3yumH1ogA9EgU8CTI7PC98ziJRTWhSD3LFnLzdNpboxE
	MzqNVUhkrGLC62GuP14M/DbklWzGEnqmw5Eov+OFfPjVDNVRHn8hsm8Xva3SJsw3DZDn
	QVOTOENb26NDiik1SGx53XfjyBXYhFz36fOvg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.117.7 with SMTP id o7mr848600ibq.46.1303841864758; Tue, 26
	Apr 2011 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.34.77 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=pOCQRdUA3_-_=q+m27H526rWK7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=9Kgz4kXRzK_KC9LpSDBEoVQiseg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=pOCQRdUA3_-_=q+m27H526rWK7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:17:44 -0600
Message-ID: <BANLkTimrxy6=8NQ+VpysJiRcWCX6RpbrWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dave greenfield <dave@stanalytics.com>
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 <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 18:17:25 -0000

"Big Buffers Bad. Small Buffers Good."

"*Some* packet loss is essential for the correct operation of the Internet"

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.



On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Dave Hart <davehart@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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-colla=
pse-of-the-internet.php
>
> The piece ends with a paragraph claiming preventing packet loss is
> addressing a more fundamental problem which contributes to
> bufferbloat. =A0As long as the writer and readers believe packet loss is
> an unmitigated evil, the battle is lost. =A0More 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
>



--=20
Dave T=E4ht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://the-edge.blogspot.com