From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.taht.net (mail.taht.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:7028]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6568D3B2A2 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from dair-2506.local (c-73-202-26-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.202.26.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.taht.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F39B82132E for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:22:38 +0000 (UTC) To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Dave_T=c3=a4ht?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:22:35 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] TCP BBR paper is now generally available 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, 08 Dec 2016 13:22:40 -0000 drop tail works better than any single queue aqm in this scenario. On 12/8/16 12:24 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Dave Taht wrote: > >> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3022184 > > "BBR converges toward a fair share of the bottleneck bandwidth whether > competing with other BBR flows or with loss-based congestion control." > > That's not what I took away from your tests of having BBR and Cubic > flows together, where BBR just killed Cubic dead. > > What has changed since? Have you re-done your tests with whatever has > changed, I must have missed that? Or did I misunderstand? >