From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDDB421F311 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id B8885A8; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:48:00 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1411451280; bh=JPAg1nhfeNBYJQ0hTX8uXGBSKbWd2h99GSU3h5egMvs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Oc0GRFdmVCMtGdJWhpHgtRFh+UflhQNolwfMlxHnsIwwzpYoww2pN8wM90U1ZXfaI SJ6nIx2Kl0xCsVDALsX4+REum80mHNJDLdGJ/p75ouvNHFH6wL2EgIbfuemGhZMP91 8rTpFe1XNhwS96q5GPtAD66xw9YG/f0kgXQD+02Q= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0262A7; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:48:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:48:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] I feel an urge to update this 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: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:48:33 -0000 On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Dave Taht wrote: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-iw10-considered-harmful-00 > > I just got some iw10 results on a t1 line... ugh. anyone want a stab at it? Is it at all possible to create a solution that works well for all cases? I pitched a proposal at IETF75 and then again a year ago in TCP/TCPM WGs that it might be good if the connection manager could hint the TCP stack, or the TCP stack could determine itself by heuristics, that its network connection were of a few different degrees of a few criteria which might be speed, loss, jitter etc. I perhaps even could tell my connection manager that when connected to my home wired or wifi network, "everything" is reachable via 50 + megabit/s connectivity. If I then speak to a 10GE connected server, there should be no problem for it to do IW10. Basically, my thinking is to have something similar to "MSS" but when it comes to connectivity. There was no interest anywhere in this, everybody wanted for each connection to be living in its own universe with little prior knowledge about what's been going on before it. I just don't see how we can make things work well when we try to create TCP to handle everything from 1500ms to 0.1ms of RTT, and everything from 19200bps to 100GE in speed. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se