From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A52BB3B29E
 for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:30:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501)
 id 360DBB1; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:30:17 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail;
 t=1543498217; bh=t7ykR0AIjyYIz9FCwQtc80jcwoCFNVImVMiIh9kB0X0=;
 h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=2Sb+7HnisIBn9r0mnTueaervpi6yIMhzv1qqVSKor14GQPVII6RTmE8OTYIpZ1pGJ
 R4DVNJoUtjmWuduYPRoUGwuwTwhqBGukpRcW2fq6AfQ+Ur1vpKsH7mD55cckF0zR/V
 k4h22QiQEJknT83Kjk0oJCj2dBSdE0r0l2ueWhMg=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312BEB0;
 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:30:17 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:30:17 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
In-Reply-To: <01A9062C-52DB-4FE8-A866-2796B2ADF88C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811291428170.7766@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <65EAC6C1-4688-46B6-A575-A6C7F2C066C5@heistp.net>
 <38535869-BF61-4FC4-A0FB-96E91CC4F076@ifi.uio.no>
 <CAA93jw53CyG0=igiMMTAB0hLMT2m2uJ=zJRXqkfrBkoeNgXfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <EA2C70BB-6DC1-4681-BEDF-32B007AD7B19@ifi.uio.no>
 <A5554058-1E2C-406C-961C-F34C7966FE4D@ifi.uio.no>
 <87va4gwe74.fsf@taht.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811290822200.7766@uplift.swm.pp.se>
 <7125B446-F2C4-45B3-B48C-8720B1E35776@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811290839060.7766@uplift.swm.pp.se>
 <7D833179-4D95-4C2F-B0AF-4FFD4D29DEE4@ifi.uio.no>
 <6025E3FF-E413-43F5-B9EB-4FC000846BE4@ifi.uio.no>
 <01A9062C-52DB-4FE8-A866-2796B2ADF88C@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Bloat] incremental deployment,
 transport and L4S (Re: when does the CoDel part of fq_codel help in
 the real world?)
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: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:30:18 -0000

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Jonathan Morton wrote:

> I have to ask, why would the network care?  What optimisations can be 
> obtained by reordering packets *within* a flow, when it's usually just 
> as easy to deliver them in order?

Because most implementations aren't flow aware at all and might have 4 
queues, saying "oh, this single queue is for transports that don't care 
about ordering" means everything in that queue can just be sent as soon as 
it can, ignoring HOL caused by ARQ.

> Of course, we already have FQ which reorders packets in *different* 
> flows.  The benefits are obvious in that case.

FQ is a fringe in real life (speaking as a packet moving monkey). It's 
just on this mailing list that it's the norm.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se