Re: [Bloat] I feel an urge to update this

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

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, David Lang wrote:
>
>> What is the problem with making this assumption? Why should we try to
>> change every device on the Internet to provide this information instead of
>> just using this as the default?
>
> Read the email that started this thread.

One saving grace of the IW10 deployment so far is that it is (mostly)
limited to Linux, and that methods, such as pacing/initial
spreading/fq, to cope with it better, are developing concurrently.

It's not all bad - on GigE ethernet networks, it's ok, IW10 may well
be useful in wifi packet aggregation, etc, but it does do potentially
a great deal of damage to networks running at very low rates. My
concern has largely been the collateral damage it causes network
uploads from the edge, where vastly lower rates are common.

It could be mitigated further in a desktop deployment by (for example)
sticking with IW4 for everything going out a default gateway, and
steps taken to make sure applications like bittorrent/transmission
used a lower default. I have no idea what the IW is for android, but
that should perhaps be lower also. I think ledbat shouldn't have an IW
at all....

I would not mind if IW information was carried as a payload in dhcp/hnetd/etc...

I have no problem with people suggesting changes here that require
"changing the entire internet". We seem to have done that a couple
times, already. :) It would be nice if we could calculate the damage
it causes along whatever portion of the internet is running at below
10Mbit....

A simple question - how many T1 lines are left in the world?



> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se



-- 
Dave Täht

https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/make-wifi-fast