From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-x112d.google.com (mail-yw1-x112d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112d]) (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 0CCA03B29D for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x112d.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-59e77e4f707so92320167b3.0 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:34:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695684883; x=1696289683; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=EpYu2qNq9YEQ4M3QsLtz7A/JZ/+s4HPsyVumLal9ue0=; b=L4mxKHILbZgitx1QkoTaT+qOJrtCv+PkwHeDMH/WG3M7e5tOqA4phIhUvEcctLrHB6 hkvZRXYK28+MImmWvXOBwKjYFy2Z9/F4S92jpdn4rXoD+b6T5ntO2m45DvDnbmTyKolH regghx4AkIs3plwaoJgmzXHhwR2YQcsmBM1iVJHKJEWuD7/cQdao8lzEA/gSPXfESvun 2BbrKYlIUkis6oQ0a4y8Xv/2EykF3hCzHgDSzSj7DGRyMB32BaAAhsxzOlgZ+mGReenR vq9U3fVHQvo3Fs7wNJtCvDylf5UwJjrvZh26PLCGz781/QlI/sD5DnsHXx7LtWqDj5ZJ HRaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695684883; x=1696289683; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EpYu2qNq9YEQ4M3QsLtz7A/JZ/+s4HPsyVumLal9ue0=; b=LTDIQ+hZRVQ17Qigc4QFTYNn+Dx3XeRu0V8frkO/0yJBqo2wk2BcMSb3mRJg6/9uTo ivtepnyHh41cH8o8ZCcgNcVeORXEaN/Jwx1u4BvLEItoPW3KBLwDCRHKBoAoWIjWSvt4 CPvIdQ5i+vrxMdkxZVFkGW4sSoc3EYVIgYzjEYLwfqnhwYCrkgm1qL+Ha4ta24JBTirg wkdjOudY8JX7pkh1EtYOpBEvf5O9ZxhlMxqKl1RfqFShbnoJ0+Wllj2lc8GIjLKKyXki HkF4aHKUgXACfnr0sgNny4Nggj5tP2HKFAGRrCfu3hsuEzF1KjPPJvi5RV3RQXzzyCEq 1IGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz66Pv5pe18F5F1+ygMwFf/ZTAtXepv9XYCaEgdv5zzS+ipFFrF H2Ltc4dfggk3aJcj1js7NJUOERl1wU/rD/S1S/48DjmzNZE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHPmTmQhmB/9eEpgUb/fLbvG2Oubm7dGxhs2KcdxJyJmtfi4eAYRdkcmS2s+K7NtLFDsANOUuBvKpdw7RSEw5M= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ea09:0:b0:583:51de:e219 with SMTP id t9-20020a0dea09000000b0058351dee219mr7607775ywe.17.1695684883250; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:34:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <14070C4F89255E13B9D93B81@10.96.7.39> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:34:30 -0700 Message-ID: To: Kenneth Porter Cc: bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] The Register; How TCP's congestion control saved the internet 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: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:34:44 -0000 John Nagle showed up on the related hackernews thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3D37633743#37637357 Animats 23 hours ago | root | parent | next [=E2=80=93] > If everyone played nice, the exponential backoff timers would work as exp= ected, Yes. As I wrote in 1985, in [1], under "Game Theoretic Aspects of Network Congestion" and "Fairness in Packet Switching Systems", about fair queuing, We would like to protect the network from hosts that are not well-behaved. More specifically, we would like, in the presence of both well-behaved and badly-behaved hosts, to insure that well-behaved hosts receive better service than badly-behaved hosts. We have devised a means of achieving this. The goal of fair queuing is not to improve network performance overall. The goal of fair queuing is to reward well-behaved hosts over badly-behaved hosts. If everyone is well-behaved, the queue lengths are the same, usually 1 or 0, and fair queuing does little. There is an inherent conflict between this goal and achieving maximum data transfer rates. If you try for near 100% utilization, the problems become much worse. You can run comfortably at maybe 70%. This was an accepted tradeoff for DoD systems. DoD wants things to keep working in a crisis, even if normal operation is a bit slower. This is why I'm not a big fan of HTTP/3. It's a attempt to get about 10% more performance in the good case, at the cost of considerable extra complexity and less immunity to gaming the system. I never wrote about that much at the time, because if I had, people would have realized earlier that traffic shaping is possible, which implies that you can sell and bill for bandwidth and quality of service. We might have ended up with pay per packet. [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/pdfrfc/rfc970.txt.pdf reply On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht wro= te: > > This is possibly the first time the word bufferbloat has made the > register. I hope it is not the last. > > Although the author called out van=C2=B4s early work, he seems to have > missed it was also van and kathie on codel, and he was also on the BBR > team. > > What would have happened to the net without van? > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 1:34=E2=80=AFPM Kenneth Porter via Bloat > wrote: > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bloat mailing list > > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > > > -- > Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.h= tml > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos --=20 Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.htm= l Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos