From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-x233.google.com (mail-vc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233]) (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 BD1E421F3DE for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hy4so6629649vcb.10 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:47:17 -0800 (PST) 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=nb4AC8RYm1APOjMLtfVx/Vxgpc4Mury+YnWirAZ3Uno=; b=O4MWaaC9NP0fiPjO/0/R3ouIKVMK5ebw40tH0f/0qi9YnsU92UuWUo5BY+1GQyvCda oNasAzaoHBoH6yYUTOcY8joFxcpOVb/vZIu58mCD0PBZZpcrhfu+ro2fwrbh1ShI7wJ+ l3B066vs4quxicl77yEjoLrIdRZAt+EBX0tT83mJugxfVgPSt+0yIRDA6Z6T0lzUko9q ZSEbkToeGSMbISsfaesW4KyTnkdopYDuACt8bk+KpZTk7Ng1+FqWzih9hBl8wkDRIB90 1iMoTXsaTRCX2QX1cdRxWJph4VnlUQLIHCNWJRlTmFe4deN92YMGXHIxU46J5vaYnn1e nJFA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.12.138 with SMTP id y10mr13444960vdb.35.1425052037427; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.24.79 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.24.79 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:47:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <435DDB48-33B9-400A-ACE3-CD29C50CF6E3@netapp.com> References: <435DDB48-33B9-400A-ACE3-CD29C50CF6E3@netapp.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:47:17 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Morton To: "Eggert, Lars" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b397dd6377a370c051013c87c 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 15:47:48 -0000 --485b397dd6377a370c051013c87c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. 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 --485b397dd6377a370c051013c87c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It's not ideal, but I'm not quite as worried about t= hat 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 te= mporary effect on one of them.

Meanwhile, increased deployment of ECN would permit adding A= QM as a means to decrease packet loss.

Random packet loss due to poor quality lines, and also due t= o dumb policers and overloaded core routers, is probably what's intende= d here.

- Jonathan Morton

--485b397dd6377a370c051013c87c--