From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E3F3B2A2
 for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed,  2 Nov 2016 05:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501)
 id 546BCA3; Wed,  2 Nov 2016 10:27:08 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail;
 t=1478078828; bh=fY/yA4LOe9DorpmvAndNUR7ZvsEvNOo0AZeBIw1kjvI=;
 h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=mWjxrt/orSasQZsGkYkvIkGavkt0riN4DuBgZkm9QzgB5eKLlWPVNLzhn+KLlrlm9
 TxaHNC5Beg71jNhIpMEmAQWqUczr5dl7KSaW04ZW+aCwqXKK96sTGkIwTHT/lurBNz
 91jnKRb0gLqhS0x4pVnQOGnw6GRt1LSYOAFM/mNc=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8B2A2;
 Wed,  2 Nov 2016 10:27:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:27:08 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
cc: BBR Development <bbr-dev@googlegroups.com>, 
 bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAK6E8=eCBzLxnmEvq5h5yggCbiX_F4whrE1EG6UMfO6Wq5SNRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1611021015380.14320@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAA93jw7AnChqZue4nfo_SBXgD_NKcXdEcR96tQv7Anrwx=NGCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161021084726.GA1913@sesse.net> <20161027170447.GA28383@sesse.net>
 <CAA93jw7kpketkgTRcm+eQBcrDhL9SNbMEAKE9fXjtnVywEQ9WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK6E8=cGgx7i4zPtZPpX4DU10KaDS4Ko0QddLmQ4-tyKinXHRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA93jw4WgQ6hOtWeM31nb1wUuzrPKDwqtVVn9CZTGhHBDZKAkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK6E8=fqkmYRO56Xd0Lj7MyioOVtusi_DkW5rAER-WW3GidzJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK6E8=eCBzLxnmEvq5h5yggCbiX_F4whrE1EG6UMfO6Wq5SNRg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED;
 BOUNDARY="-137064504-1898461149-1478078828=:14320"
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [bbr-dev] Re: "BBR" TCP patches submitted to linux
 kernel
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
 <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
 <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 09:27:10 -0000

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---137064504-1898461149-1478078828=:14320
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Yuchung Cheng wrote:

> We are curious why you choose the single-queued AQM. Is it just for the 
> sake of testing?

Non-flow aware AQM is the most commonly deployed "queue management" on the 
Internet today. Most of them are just stupid FIFOs with taildrop, and the 
buffer size can be anywhere from super small to huge depending on 
equipment used and how it's configured.

Any proposed TCP congestion avoidance algorithm to be deployed on the 
wider Internet has to some degree be able to handle this deployment 
scenario without killing everything else it's sharing capacity with.

Dave Tähts testing case where BBR just kills Cubic makes me very 
concerned.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
---137064504-1898461149-1478078828=:14320--