From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) (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 89AEF21F228 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 00:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id l6so7417929qcy.9 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 00:11:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=tY+X357P2iHRyaxfuXi/vpFM+P9z0FuYoVL5iWsL47o=; b=gI8daUy0t+kQtqHc28rE5MELV8+1jrMVfPXn4UyqGosdEMQwRPP7tYg4BoEi+xB+l/ 7ntxOkAjLc4N8hB1B8jXAoFUFF9fsKgH5vubE833sbvOtobruTqOhlDxv71Qes5AgU67 drbBME0S6r36LKRTdZeknKsJhhLIhF8rdxJ7noSXCewZjdlT70ZcElqkznb9zXdD/PVi 9ZRprFPam998mYZasbhDvIAi6RWdjxlp1cjstBSirEYqAM10m84yBzj+FwWCLWzldTJH Ps61hsvieKpeXIl0SD2GmZwgzpgJ9HfI+/or0Y1/NEhVUheX8cjVZFkPCav9okUBMqJ0 3Eqg== X-Received: by 10.224.19.131 with SMTP id a3mr35423549qab.3.1399878700496; Mon, 12 May 2014 00:11:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jeroen.balduyck@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.34.248 with HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2014 00:11:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Forums1000 Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:11:10 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: NxG_n_GZPd6jGNEz4Pp9eODNBWM Message-ID: To: bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132e966ac2e4004f92ea890 Subject: [Bloat] How is bufferbloat prevented/fixed for UDP? 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: Mon, 12 May 2014 07:11:46 -0000 --001a1132e966ac2e4004f92ea890 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Curiously, there is little information to be found regarding bufferbloat and UDP. I did find hints briefly alluding to some problems: 1)With UDP, you cannot uniquely identify a flow? This prevents an AQM-algorithm to drop packets for an (several) offending UDP flow(s). 2) Unlike TCP, UDP does not back down when encountering packet loss So how does UDP fit in concerning efforts to combat bufferbloat? Having one queue to mange all UDP 'flows' does not seem like a good approach. Thanks for shining a light on this:-) Jeroen --001a1132e966ac2e4004f92ea890 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Curiously, there is little i= nformation to be found regarding bufferbloat and UDP.

I did f= ind hints briefly alluding to some problems:

1)With UDP, you c= annot uniquely identify a flow? This prevents an AQM-algorithm to drop pack= ets for an (several) offending UDP flow(s).

2) Unlike TCP, UDP does not back down when encountering packet lo= ss

So how does UDP fit in concerning efforts to combat bufferb= loat? Having one queue to mange all UDP 'flows' does not seem like = a good approach.

Thanks for shining a light on this:-)

Jeroen





--001a1132e966ac2e4004f92ea890--