From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597AD21F150 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ef5so1778033obb.11 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:37:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Le/jSCDkIOgnnX2uCsC03dOCn0li8PByqe5y3uCOzoo=; b=hwdRwhNp6KXw7IlTkGhMhMaa0v8VwVcVg1Yua4CfeO0Lpe5YW/rV59aOYMgOfcnO/S AGgccJpCB5jT1y7by7SOih8x4BKVb3vvDjbyz6kU+qy2SGpDhLenQnUVkMQZuvMJUhTv RrjYN4Y1fKdVr+Ir8AlkGKhXj8yQU9uxCJn/r+iHwHfbbXgs/1eXrQ9GFaj/C7k+TAxf W4Mv9KtRz/uWUuBNpYM6hyjYbPWykQ4qtVz6DJVooNk7SgfkVoLltQQ1ttmRhPxt4aat zIl9cJ3Ei2q7GfMLXPP1qUQyzqBlBxk3+h5iDKUvRZlHpJcG8L+IfntJe8CjcD69/dmB A29w== X-Received: by 10.182.64.74 with SMTP id m10mr4325749obs.61.1363793829672; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:37:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.17.200 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [80.112.144.115] From: Steffan Norberhuis Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:36:49 +0100 Message-ID: To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93b5e36c3cd4004d85cfe3b X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4mEa3l9Hqh8ItyZuusVy5f8tWbBTTMmKo1ZAg7wuD7WdyW7KebvPo3exr9hgGw0AYCaUz Subject: [Bloat] Solving bufferbloat with TCP using packet delay 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: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:37:11 -0000 --14dae93b5e36c3cd4004d85cfe3b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 --14dae93b5e36c3cd4004d85cfe3b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Everyone,

For a pro= ject for the Delft Technical University myself and 3 students are writing a= review paper on the buffer bloat problem and its possible solutions. I als= o subscribed to this mailinglist and see alot of proposed solutions to be A= QM.

But hardly any talk about solving buffer bloat by using a TCP variant t= hat 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 so= lution. 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 wo= uld 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 bufferbl= oat?

- 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 tha= t would favor TCP over AQM?

Best regards,

Steffan Norbe= rhuis
--14dae93b5e36c3cd4004d85cfe3b--