From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA743B2A3 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r190so59580181wme.1 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:54:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7u0xpkl78E63Cv+Uepy3d4b2Zsl1qDXE7JjIm8CYMHs=; b=FGlz+2F+vHAFH1NW9sLQwrHT5iPAV6JESJgJwhoK/Txk5lNrRmZrQVcgrrimqmBsgl x4PM19tDfKqdpolkKB+06gj3QeBlnN6lVJls7ZoQDuz0oFqGbEwjq1LhR/RJS2LyyWR8 /bW+9Sqw/VKnklnh28vVx/VcJ6mYVcgAhthGmAN107IcY+/xKU+/JRNp/cO/ZDJWW9xU jUJ8D1Rs1xDb/fCM+lp0Glu83yjKcDxRvEPBnATA/UHOhi67lAgR1fuY9ScCaTUK5u4C Ifumf3DLix6qWgG79x60UrCDzgZZ/5fwpoMT8Lj0Rt7WClmREENiZrSCS8RcN/lr5vyd q2SQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7u0xpkl78E63Cv+Uepy3d4b2Zsl1qDXE7JjIm8CYMHs=; b=b3q40ULKRmfxJfHFeWXV1Pev6gTZ9NdpGliFHSXn5tfTTkZhKAwk8xOCw50u9XTTtb nT3GQNBfj51wQ8D1BEpmLHwRBe58cgaMOLa6o/00e5GR0UjGo5zZobYcodjZVDyBv2ew yVsQ5J9q4sHWh2egL209dwdaAyk//srHvfwY/QwDWhQj2SU073OEOdjLfEyyf7rKvAgB jWnwFkTiYMGtAk3ehwAR8CL52NFt9iAD3xfR8mn9HNwsfnxHIRBnDegMMYfFU3Bwi6gu YN7X1h8l2fUVwAXd7Y8Rp+cICr2f85vXGsX4huFNT2julT1TKt7TJJfLDndlhX8XdVOb dH0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7stRWIvt7fX4N/X+U49W9pFaQKh5yyQGBNt9hEG8Wso2WqSGSM zd/vz3fzaQl3ow== X-Received: by 10.28.63.148 with SMTP id m142mr380748wma.98.1493423677201; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (185.182.7.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.7.182.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a5sm6476269wma.28.2017.04.28.16.54.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:54:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Andy Furniss To: xnor , David Lang Cc: Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <85386ca9-f0be-f60f-796a-e5aa3b8ee212@gmail.com> <5ca09d5c-e674-110a-72e4-b8fd434c7a5d@gmail.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:54:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0 SeaMonkey/2.51a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5ca09d5c-e674-110a-72e4-b8fd434c7a5d@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Cake] cake default target is too low for bbr? X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:54:38 -0000 Andy Furniss wrote: > Andy Furniss wrote: > >>> b) it reacts to increase in RTT. An experiment with 10 Mbps >>> bottleneck, 40 ms RTT and a typical 1000 packet buffer, increase in >>> RTT with BBR is ~3 ms while with cubic it is over 1000 ms. >> >> That is a nice aspect (though at 60mbit hfsc + 80ms bfifo I tested with >> 5 tcps it was IIRC 20ms vs 80 for cubic). I deliberately test using ifb >> on my PC because I want to pretend to be a router - IME (OK it was a >> while ago) testing on eth directly gives different results - like the >> locally generated tcp is backing off and giving different results. > > I retested this with 40ms latency (netem) with hfsc + 1000 pfifo on ifb. Forgot to put this was was 10mbit not 60.