From: Steffan Norberhuis <steffan@norberhuis.nl>
To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: [Bloat] Solving bufferbloat with TCP using packet delay
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:36:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADC3P9nHcmb214w7edufkkdqhS14EG9AigUqzC_4cLhcY7fDzQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1192 bytes --]
Hello Everyone,
For a project for the Delft Technical University myself and 3 students are
writing a review paper on the buffer bloat problem and its possible
solutions. I also subscribed to this mailinglist and see alot of proposed
solutions to be AQM.
But hardly any talk about solving buffer bloat by using a TCP variant that
that uses packet delay as a way to determine the send rate. We did not come
across any papers that argue that these TCP variants are not a good
solution. We went to several professors with the question if TCP using
packet delay was not a good solution. But we did not get a concise answer.
In our view AQM needs alot of new hardware to be implemented and a TCP
variant would perhaps be easier to implement and is also able to solve
bufferbloat.
So I have a few questions I would like to ask you:
- Is TCP using packet delay considered as part of the solution for
bufferbloat?
- What are the problems of TCP delay variants that keep it from solving
bufferbloat?
- What are the drawbacks of the TCP delay variants that would favor AQM
over TCP?
- What are the advantages of TCP delay varaints that would favor TCP over
AQM?
Best regards,
Steffan Norberhuis
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1341 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2013-03-20 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-20 15:36 Steffan Norberhuis [this message]
2013-03-20 15:55 ` Dave Taht
2013-03-20 16:12 ` Oliver Hohlfeld
2013-03-20 16:35 ` Michael Richardson
2013-03-20 20:21 ` grenville armitage
2013-03-20 23:16 ` Stephen Hemminger
2013-03-21 1:01 ` Jonathan Morton
2013-03-26 13:10 ` Maarten de Vries
2013-03-26 13:24 ` Jonathan Morton
2013-04-04 0:10 ` Simon Barber
2013-03-21 8:26 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2013-04-03 18:16 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2013-04-03 18:23 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2013-04-03 19:35 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2013-04-03 18:14 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CADC3P9nHcmb214w7edufkkdqhS14EG9AigUqzC_4cLhcY7fDzQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=steffan@norberhuis.nl \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox