From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CA6221F380 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:47:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id v63so17407594oia.13 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:47:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9nmmOZtZCtxcrklNOpdVCRvmY+EGZsxyRwLrsDGU5tg=; b=QnLGv8dHvSFuI5q/sNXQtxDP1EJeE9CGK57s/9czCEZfEdP/XoXOTL2L+9/u2sdpJn HsV4CWk12USMTdgULx42+oSKwRuvjXNIJ60+H/J3bzAAJSLgs9pWpzyYlcCRLkYYl+Jq SwjW/IQ1Un1GsQ9NhKIjyM6JUdXMCXd1DqiZh3BQ8ZWqyNieMhcnoaCCQVq6VqnLOmoW wLkigO8IawQOvCq05LTe9bntCawFPASlbvLCvIfPOpwudafHcbEWoe92guSs3N3ubOiF douIHaMDQuCWHNK9jBtaiHb8+Y1cznnR0pxEvczIvQZFWplLrj+rHijWuyqt2WbyC6g6 v4QA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9nmmOZtZCtxcrklNOpdVCRvmY+EGZsxyRwLrsDGU5tg=; b=EBJmKcRGFI5B4s6+Wx6Jz14lmqisvZydd2gBtycn0Y/ihsoycF1Mrr4cc1SpyVILnq oL/OHuWhdi5PlhcW22jIZoIiDqJvBGOCJTybUu/c2wkPgvw4bQYgTXqy2mF3AkcSDyD/ Vpxp4IH+48eSxMS01auvvF3JptObNThvdf53sgm8gF9YjEkES3+Io5tPHmzKRrMMruOI 15ME6VuD/gGs/iu41RCMv3BdUlHlvU2vfoliTUzgott/dfNhDsWKJT7LxDsxmwoh/bQN pUU5Ay4csicejOvxdzyNmowcundeNgJKshoRBUasd3EZ/3dE5hNY2iGUVlGw2yy9Rk9v 9TjA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn4PPymoIpcymWztKUsBZ5O1Ct+2jm1TYx0zYdFps3mEpJpMoND9iskmWjNGuirs+9e38fV MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.165.70 with SMTP id yw6mr8639955obb.13.1425066446222; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.87.202 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:47:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <435DDB48-33B9-400A-ACE3-CD29C50CF6E3@netapp.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:47:26 -0800 Message-ID: From: Matt Mathis To: Dave Taht Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c30c624f1d9e051017235b Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Packet loss in FCC press release 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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:47:55 -0000 --001a11c30c624f1d9e051017235b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You are failing to make a distinction between the edges (access) and the core (ISP's backbone and interconnects). At the edges, where multiplexing is relatively low and queueing is required, loss or ECN is necessary to regulate queue occupancy. In the core, where traffic is highly aggregated and queues are generally tiny, (excess) loss indicates insufficient capacity, and that some users are suffering due to other people's traffic. In the core losses (or queueing) are nearly always a bad thing. This one sentence is sufficient to solve much of the net neutrality problem= . See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-03 Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Jonathan Morton > wrote: > > It's not ideal, but I'm not quite as worried about that as you might be= . > > There are several potential causes of packet loss in a network, and > > increasing buffer sizes is only likely to have a minor and temporary > effect > > on one of them. > > Clearly establishing that 0 packet loss (without ECN) is bad, that > some range of rates of packet loss relative to > bandwidth is GOOD, and levels above that indicative of a problem, > would nice. I can envision a meter > designed to show that. > > > > > Meanwhile, increased deployment of ECN would permit adding AQM as a > means to > > decrease packet loss. > > > > Random packet loss due to poor quality lines, and also due to dumb > policers > > and overloaded core routers, is probably what's intended here. > > > > - Jonathan Morton > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bloat mailing list > > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > > > > > -- > Dave T=C3=A4ht > Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! > > https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --001a11c30c624f1d9e051017235b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You are failing to make a distinction between the edges (a= ccess) and the core (ISP's backbone and interconnects).

<= div>At the edges, where multiplexing is relatively low and queueing is requ= ired, loss or ECN is necessary to regulate queue occupancy.

<= /div>
In the core, where traffic is highly aggregated and queues are ge= nerally tiny, (excess) loss indicates insufficient capacity, and that some = users are suffering due to other people's traffic. =C2=A0 In the core l= osses (or queueing) are nearly always a bad thing.

This one sentence is sufficient to solve much of the net neutrality proble= m.


Than= ks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it. =C2= =A0- Alan Kay

Privacy matters!=C2=A0 We know from recent events that= people are using our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. = =C2=A0 We treat privacy and security as matters of life and death, because = for some users, they are.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Dave Taht <= span dir=3D"ltr"><dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not ideal, but I'm not quite as worried about that as you= might be.
> There are several potential causes of packet loss in a network, and > increasing buffer sizes is only likely to have a minor and temporary e= ffect
> on one of them.

Clearly establishing that 0 packet loss (without ECN) is bad, that some range of rates of packet loss relative to
bandwidth is GOOD, and levels above that indicative of a problem,
would nice. I can envision a meter
designed to show that.

>
> Meanwhile, increased deployment of ECN would permit adding AQM as a me= ans to
> decrease packet loss.
>
> Random packet loss due to poor quality lines, and also due to dumb pol= icers
> and overloaded core routers, is probably what's intended here.
>
> - Jonathan Morton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat= .net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>



--
Dave T=C3=A4ht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/po= sts/TVX3o84jjmb
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

--001a11c30c624f1d9e051017235b--