To put this straight - I meant that all the efferescing outlines as to BBR were potentially overly hasty, perceive it as a mere utterance. For BBR2.0 I referred to the slide by Geoff listing the cued improvements from 1.0 -> 2.0 - insinuating thereby ruling out thinkable 'vantage aspects' of BBR (excuse my cynicism - early morning ranting!). Good. Thanks for sharing your work.Interesting. Potentially, all affectuated. After having applied the BBR 2.0, we might are back to Cubic? :DI don't understand what you're saying. I think Geoff tested BBR v1.0. Explanations for the experienced behavior can be found in our paper http://doc.tm.kit.edu/2017-kit-icnp-bbr-authors-copy.pdf, esp. section 3. Geoff's findings in the wild nicely confirm our results that were performed in more controlled lab settings. Important is though, that you always test with multiple concurrent BBR flows...
Moreover, if it tends to be unstable on larger scale - what is Google doing then? Thought they've got a more or less homogeneous BBR driven TCP flow ecosystem - at least internally!? Was all propaganda? When speculating, might working for them since of centrally handled flow steering approaches - "imposing inter-flow fairness".There are certain situations where BBR might work well: 1) you only have a single flow at the bottleneck, might be the case in their B4 scenario 2) The senders a application limited (e.g., YouTube) 3) The bottleneck buffer is much larger than a BDP (then BDP will limit the queue size between 1 and 1.5 BDP) However, BBR has no explicit fairness mechanism, so sometimes one will see quite unfair shares for longer periods, even if there are only BBR flows present at then bottleneck.
ACK
-- Besten Gruß Matthias Tafelmeier