From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it1-x12f.google.com (mail-it1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 415393B2A4 for ; Sun, 26 May 2019 08:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id 9so20369074itf.4 for ; Sun, 26 May 2019 05:07:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kGcubsbL6HzHTNyyDBhrueG+vO9NT3pSoCRLNtnuizk=; b=YfjDEYniqbIeSiNi+4wJJMaYzSpjcHWrv1ygr04ifhEG+N52CrnS+UWBCFhG30kR2W DHO2v2P8OiNimLagdszM66cOSJMy6lwSAV9YuNKigMMxuIk9XaYPvZRCjO29wDxJqySO MsFc/NKnZKUYNVvgRlpWACfRdutUjyrR6iUn7YQHuNh90mqpM8q6NYC+2E38dFoOH/cq DlKQjlzeFCo8zwIjL9vHFzCrTnfMFk0whD0R7QmrROfPaTIpQpw7g+JxLf0Cn/yZRbGX 5K5czz/CEUYW/rWbCeu4TlfsMxsqaQ87aV6rOvgaomvzMB8H27g0sGj+c3LhJbtAH+bc VAag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kGcubsbL6HzHTNyyDBhrueG+vO9NT3pSoCRLNtnuizk=; b=jdYtcnobriI1AJCy3KMIkmCgbgIXrPKy+MXKdqIJxxWU27rtw1zq8A56GeQAcaeuqc vyEyGeEMkSfaxBXjZT5xtNzgIgccil2XwAkA51lLfSgxMpqZJk+ewXyQtx6lvqr6KREb Nzc+Gbg5oY/o/eV6v+sdbUeiLxKDnpFEQbqxlJa2C9wbWWuxroORoOg6nWDxJv6HX1MX GoJXNWwTXdH5T3mYfa1e4cJXPoP4gb84Gw94riBPdecWJGbXKQlwddhLujXpnb+j96m0 G5GWxvRO+6pcfq0WooioayrOz9+uxnsQMgA4ex07lTiVJg0FZw2TZT7JP4VCsvozJsu7 d5Bg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWySRiuAPJY+LWJo4Ageoys7HzCINAJXtNaE4slpXxRqnzcq0Dw v9+eyJGvFivtmx1wFLU5MZNu/bSXvJo9Khd4DG4QtdvzgJ4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzEO08w/MBj0JDbDwqjVvqUG88VAhaYOdfdSQVZcMO39qxrbhoJ1QkncoYGkSVUUYjKxUEYUh42Qo8laE7zPcI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:660c:28a:: with SMTP id s10mr9207950itl.173.1558872467346; Sun, 26 May 2019 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 05:07:34 -0700 Message-ID: To: bloat , BBR Development Cc: kunze@comsys.rwth-aachen.de, rueth@comsys.rwth-aachen.de, hohlfeld@comsys.rwth-aachen.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Bloat] An Empirical View on Content Provider Fairness 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: Sun, 26 May 2019 12:07:48 -0000 re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.07152.pdf A nit with this paper is that I'd have preferred they measured and reported the actual rtts to the CDNs they tested, rather than inflate them 50ms via netem. They report all sorts of different behaviors on competing flows vs a vs akamai, cloudflare, edgecast, fastly, and google - big buffers, small, bbr vs cubic, etc. And, ok, ok, the final bit here after that eval happened is why I'm reposting widely. "Luckily, the flow-queuing variant of fq_codel enables a large degree of fairness even in heterogeneous settings. Thus, it seems to again stand that the technologies to enable a fair and performant Internet are available and only need to be deployed at the bottlenecks." Their prior work, categorizing IW sizes and behaviors in the real world, was also quite good. https://tma.ifip.org/2018/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/06/tma2018_paper1= 3.pdf -- Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740