From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (h-66-167-227-145.lsan.ca.dynamic.globalcapacity.com [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9EDD3B29E for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (syslog [10.0.0.100]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6D93C540; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:15:25 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Michael Welzl cc: Dave Taht , tsvwg@ietf.org, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <878t2h1jtm.fsf@taht.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Bloat] quick review and rant of "Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link" X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:15:33 -0000 re-sending since it bounced the first time On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Michael Welzl wrote: > >>> On 29 Oct 2018, at 05:02, Dave Taht wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Dear Greg: >>> >>> I don't feel like commenting much on ietf matters these days >>> but, jeeze, >> >> (snip) >> >> There seems to me to be a disconnect here, the core of which is this >> comment: >> >> >>> Did I rant already that the vast majority of flows are non-saturating? >> >> That's a bug, not a feature - and you seem to treat it as an unchangeable >> fact. > > Why would you think that saturating flows should be common? A very large > percentage of Internet traffic is streaming audio/video and that should never > saturate a link, it should be pacing the data to the rate of the content. > > DNS queries are not going to be saturating. > > queries to check cache validity are not going to be saturating. > > microservices calls (including most IoT data) and their replies are not going > to be saturating, in part because they don't have much to say, and in part > because even if they do have more to say, they aren't going to ramp up to > high packet rates before they run out of data to send. > > It's only bulk transfers of data that are possibly going to be saturating, > and they are only going to saturate their allowed share of the slowest link > in the path. On all other links they are going to be non-saturating. > > As links get faster, things that would have been saturating years ago fail to > saturate the new, faster links. > > So what would the Internet look like if it didn't have the vast majority of > flows being non-saturating? > > David Lang >