From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DF5121F3DC for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:35:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wp4so19410891obc.0 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:35:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s4IP7JYH/ePBRNUE2ZBnqnuEdviSm7fsGQG8SM2c8xk=; b=L/asYWSRq2JRKAUPqFZzsymb/k+oQIsIllWAeJhp1tn/5vW1h2RYpdoeR/5AgX8LoU O4bP8Yjnkp2rZ33Or7tst4fwK+H6r8l8pPdqZSwa1YRb/GVX+6exSV4DTnLeyu2iLZVT R+GcwktF7uBYEEjE1ttiBwq3w35hXDTWegw1O9KTt0pTBCN1/dLgDwIMTbQN4rqe78U1 1T08Oy8wqM9biC6UvSKV9qnDoqKN5ux/15fGPR9S9Mau3zdBDYabQF24Hg5j8ZYehdma UuQdM95ZEb8coE+DqUjItw2vcwb50YjeRckeYWPKpu9DBVA4l0Xsuwk58k+5iKPIxExa 60gg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.47.42 with SMTP id a10mr10548129oen.75.1425054910407; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:35:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:35:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <435DDB48-33B9-400A-ACE3-CD29C50CF6E3@netapp.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:35:10 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Jonathan Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Packet loss in FCC press release X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:35:39 -0000 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Jonathan Morton wr= ote: > It's not ideal, but I'm not quite as worried about that as you might be. > There are several potential causes of packet loss in a network, and > increasing buffer sizes is only likely to have a minor and temporary effe= ct > on one of them. Clearly establishing that 0 packet loss (without ECN) is bad, that some range of rates of packet loss relative to bandwidth is GOOD, and levels above that indicative of a problem, would nice. I can envision a meter designed to show that. > > Meanwhile, increased deployment of ECN would permit adding AQM as a means= to > decrease packet loss. > > Random packet loss due to poor quality lines, and also due to dumb police= rs > and overloaded core routers, is probably what's intended here. > > - Jonathan Morton > > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb