From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-33-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-103-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.103]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A733D2E03C0 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scan-31-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-31-ewr.local [10.0.141.237]) by mail-33-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7D16F8815 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:19:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -15.5 (---------------) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 171.71.176.71 Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mail-33-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA6F6F7585 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:18:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1349; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300364338; x=1301573938; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8lztHchCORhuJMy95xjEcQGwsIDkvZtDlcKBzXiOVEs=; b=jAxBtLfW4PGqNzrfmC6Vl/J1n0wKMyhV5321HQPW79B/ODRu4vMg8S+r sM0buMWZPIzwFHRSUIkbDFUM/eZaD7A5B6pkrDPcWxHxxmIuUpkMYsE8q e+3nRh57GDHLShrvhn0vkOr3aT25Cx5A4rtjvSVLebfo0YdQcWblb6q1/ w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJqYgU2tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbAClTneoIJwvhWMEhS+HL4NN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,198,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="321327596" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Mar 2011 12:18:57 +0000 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2HCIq43007350; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:18:56 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:18:56 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:18:56 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Fred Baker X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3F2F5E9B-C710-4C2F-AF99-CDF7C314A50A@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:18:39 -0700 Message-Id: References: <4D7F4121.40307@freedesktop.org><20110315175942.GA10064@goldfish><1300212877.2087.2155.camel@tardy><20110315183111.GB2542@tuxdriver.com><29B06777-CC5F-4802-8727-B04F58CDA9E3@gmail.com><20110315205146.GF2542@tuxdriver.com><219C7840-ED79-49EA-929D-96C5A6200401@gmail.com><20110315151946.31e86b46@nehalam><1300228592.2087.2191.camel@tardy><1300229578.2565.29.camel@edumazet-laptop><87fwqo54n7.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org><823E2A7B-4F46-4159-8029-BD3B075CC4CE@gmail.com><87bp1b6fo0.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org><87bp1b4yh4.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> <35010A85-C5A4-4133-8707-4E114C65A8C6@gmail.com> <3F2F5E9B-C710-4C2F-AF99-CDF7C314A50A@cisco.com> To: Richard Scheffenegger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Stephen Hemminger , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Random idea in reaction to all the discussion of TCPflavours - timestamps? 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, 17 Mar 2011 12:19:04 -0000 On Mar 17, 2011, at 5:05 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > I'm very much in favor of ECN, which in all of the tests I have done = has proven very effective at limiting queues to the knee. I'm also in = favor of delay-based TCPs like CalTech FAST and the Hamilton and CAIA = models; FAST tunes to having a small amount of data continuously in = queue at the bottleneck, and Hamilton/CAIA tunes to a small bottleneck. = The problem tends to be that the "TCP Mafia" - poorly named, but a = smallish set of people who actually control widely-used TCP = implementations - tend to very much believe in the loss-based model, in = part because of poor performance from past delay-based implementations = like Vegas and in part due to IPR concerns. Also, commercial interests = like Google are pushing very hard for fast delivery of content, which is = what is behind Linux' recent change to set the initial window segments.=20= I didn't say, and should have said: I'm also in favor of AQM in any = form; I prefer marking to dropping, but both are signals to the end = system. The issue is that we need the right mark/drop rate, and the = algorithms are neither trivial nor (if the fact that after 20+ years Van = and Kathy haven't yet published a red-lite paper they're happy with is = any indication) well documented in the general case.=