From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C8F21F260 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from hms-beagle-2.lan ([134.2.89.70]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LfC4q-1XkxKy1qnI-00olu5; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:36:56 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <201502251728.t1PHSf66016319@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:36:54 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <201502251728.t1PHSf66016319@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> To: Bob Briscoe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:XPwT/5CS25SN2raz9AQ4fOb3pFPWkEC82wp5VZf4Y9mDtiMh+Bg rKaFlQbtfAhQCfSWD89D/rvYWil5LTMtN4htKQQzS1P/uqr3cAiPxJkelF2gptmBKoeAJSO SkeVBRNHfNgiifLAEuz5PpyptphKLLKCpdFADaOUftLYwUuBk7c/OzK1LNJPAPhjmkckAm3 qBmyq9SneFgWn69dr+37g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: Alex Elsayed , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] RED against bufferbloat 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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:38:09 -0000 Hi Bob, On Feb 25, 2015, at 18:28 , Bob Briscoe wrote: > Alex, >=20 > At 09:31 25/02/2015, Alex Elsayed wrote: >> It was less a criticism of your work itself, and more pointing out = that Bob >> Briscoe was applying research on symmetric paths to asymmetric paths = without >> questioning the applicability of its conclusions. >=20 > Mea culpa. > Just one ambiguous inference and the whole list explodes! >=20 > When I said "The paper convinced me that ARED is good enough (in the = paper's simulations it was often better than PIE or CoDel)," >=20 > I didn't mean 'good enough to go ahead and deploy'. Don't worry we're = testing out ARED. I meant good enough to make it the centre of my = attention. (I did say "consider deploying" later in the sentence). >=20 > Our ARED testing is focusing on whether there are any pathologies, = rather than whether it is slightly better or worse than the perfect = solution X that will takes a decade to make any difference to the = majority. >=20 > It's interesting that no-one picked up on the sentence "This could = reduce deployment completion time from decades to a few months." > I take that as a symptom that the bufferbloat list is mainly populated = by implementers. If there's a nail that can't be hit with the = implementation hammer, it seems it's not an interesting nail, even if = it's an extremely important nail. My understanding was that your idea =93any AQM is better than = none=94 is the consensus; the promise of actual deployment on existing = hardware is really interesting. Especially when one considers how much = real world data this could produce to compare other implementations = against. Also I would not be amazed if a deployment the size of BT might = do, can move manufacturers to increase their interest in better AQM = solutions to differentiate their products (but I guess that is dreaming = ;) ) Best Regards Sebastian >=20 >=20 >=20 > Bob >=20 >=20 > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat