Re: [Bloat] The Dark Problem with AQM in the Internet?

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jan Ceuleers <jan.ceuleers@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 06:35 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> When a message is lost due to an error, how do you determine whose fault
>> it is?
>
> Links need to be engineered for the optimum combination of power,
> bandwidth, overhead and residual error that meets requirements. I agree
> with your implied point that a single error is unlikely to be indicative
> of a real problem, but a link not meeting requirements is someone's fault.
>
> So like Jerry I'd be interested in an ability for endpoints to be able
> to collect statistics on per-hop loss probabilities so that admins can
> hold their providers accountable.

I will argue that a provider demonstrating 3% packet loss and low
latency is "better" than a provider showing .03% packet loss and
exorbitant latency. So I'd rather be measuring latency AND loss.

One very cool thing that went by at sigcomm last week was the concept
of "active networking" revived in the form of "Tiny Packet Programs":
see:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7143v3.pdf

Which has a core concept of a protocol and virtual machine that can
actively gather data from the path itself about buffering, loss, etc.

No implementation was presented, but I could see a way to easily do it
in linux via iptables. Regrettably, elsewhere in the real world, we
have to infer these statistics via various means.



> Jan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article