From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 C10D63B2A4; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 56267B4; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 15:06:03 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1552831563; bh=RKEDha2W0UPLGDCmD0yK8BQ14/+lCXOMqs7hSsueLDo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0uKXVUZImFHPSe2DqMiAxeZ3U51JHtnm9mg8pp0vyN2tbagiiXkrpaN0T8Y0HxfbA TakH+RCCiNOXBcrIai0LQpXmRmyrVDyomip4aGB7RZwmuZVpXz8+uuEpNX/cGWTkgo 11ZgdzbRx3CN06pzxdxEV9fUH4WYsnAm4+bCsA+Y= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529E8B1; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 15:06:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 15:06:03 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: "Holland, Jake" cc: "David P. Reed" , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat In-Reply-To: <7029DA80-8B83-4775-8261-A4ADD2CF34C7@akamai.com> Message-ID: References: <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> <27FA673A-2C4C-4652-943F-33FAA1CF1E83@gmx.de> <1552669283.555112988@apps.rackspace.com> <7029DA80-8B83-4775-8261-A4ADD2CF34C7@akamai.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] [Ecn-sane] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 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: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:06:04 -0000 On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote: > Granted, it still remains to be seen whether SCE in practice can match > the results of L4S, and L4S was here first. But it seems to me L4S comes > with some problems that have not yet been examined, and that are nicely > dodged by a SCE-based approach. I'm actually not that interested in an academic competition about what solution gives the ultimate "best" outcome in simulation or in a lab. I am interested in good enough solutions that are actually deployable and will get deployed, and doesn't have any pathological behaviour when it comes to legacy traffic. Right now the Internet is full of deep FIFOs and they're not going away, and they're not getting FQ_CODEL or CAKE. CAKE/FQ_CODEL is nice, but it's not being deployed at the typical congestion points we have in real life. These devices would have a much easier time getting PIE or even RED, if it was just implemented. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se