From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-x22b.google.com (mail-vc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22b]) (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 8047821F727 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id id10so2736778vcb.2 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7ctLB7u8FHyiO4oLE0VJGTt0lzvgSorfXUDvan5j0No=; b=ZvlWGxePqF6CXbwnpo+eM2AGjzYqpsFT7hDljs98I520sUzLwenzEsJN+nq67omIcR Cvb5JdONHALyfQe0RHI3xiQi4Ud8VGWAh+8cj7OK1BsjwpkS1qQG3w+NLVXpy2SBkz5o bkxl6BUaRPqnSf9HYKJQvB1LK5EybUW0x8kZNw4ODNhZTq6jKJBw3FgAU5+x0kT12nlv zCrOUAVTlFhf2s3lXeLI9G7P4s2c81iLCyNFfJbRoX6/G0y6q5h4SEYSrEHKOCOJt6SV 4xA5EtxeU4Tz9JzaVvPx3ZJ8g8tPdKIYpB/Npfeq1ueJkvFImtuPM1o0D7BIsaRYrNUy wsIA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.83.227 with SMTP id t3mr9498144vdy.20.1409329866276; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.53.8.39 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.53.8.39 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <001e01cfc394$93ca5280$bb5ef780$@duckware.com> References: <000001cfbefe$69194c70$3b4be550$@duckware.com> <000901cfc2c2$c21ae460$4650ad20$@duckware.com> <4A89264B-36C5-4D1F-9E5E-33F2B42C364E@gmail.com> <002201cfc2e4$565c1100$03143300$@duckware.com> <001e01cfc394$93ca5280$bb5ef780$@duckware.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:31:06 +0300 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Morton To: Jerry Jongerius Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11368e800d04ad0501c72e12 Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] The Dark Problem with AQM in the Internet? 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, 29 Aug 2014 16:31:07 -0000 --001a11368e800d04ad0501c72e12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > A =E2=80=98boost=E2=80=99 has never been seen. Bandwidth graphs where th= ere is no packet loss look like: That's very odd, if true. Westwood+ should still be increasing the congestion window additively after recovering, so even if it got the bandwidth or latency estimates wrong, it should still recover full performance. Not necessarily very quickly, but it should still be visible on a timescale of several seconds. More likely is that you're conflating cause and effect. The packet is only lost when the boost ends, so if for some reason the boost never ends, the packet is never lost. - Jonathan Morton --001a11368e800d04ad0501c72e12 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> A =E2=80=98boost=E2=80=99 has never been seen.=C2=A0 Ba= ndwidth graphs where there is no packet loss look like:

That's very odd, if true. Westwood+ should still be incr= easing the congestion window additively after recovering, so even if it got= the bandwidth or latency estimates wrong, it should still recover full per= formance. Not necessarily very quickly, but it should still be visible on a= timescale of several seconds.

More likely is that you're conflating cause and effect. = The packet is only lost when the boost ends, so if for some reason the boos= t never ends, the packet is never lost.

- Jonathan Morton

--001a11368e800d04ad0501c72e12--