Re: [Cake] bbr vs all the aqms, cake winning...

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

David P. Reed wrote:

> 2. Google is actively pushing QUIC to replace all of TCP, and its congestion 
> management is not even implemented much less tested - and BBR isn't relevant 
> to QUIC at all. Similarly, there's more and more WebRTC traffic and RTP 
> traffic - many SMB's are seeing very high percentages of such traffic at their 
> interconnect point. Why no consideration of that at all? These guys are living 
> in an ancient past - networking as it was 2 decades ago. Again, to do simple, 
> controlled research, that's OK. But dammit, why is the research community 
> focusing in their 20 year rearview mirror?

because they don't have real-world experience to know the difference between 
networking as it is taught (and how it may exist on a simple network with well 
behaved traffic) and the wild-wild-west of the public web that desktop/mobile 
users experience.

> I know there are no research funds available, unless you can use GPT or some 
> other "Generative AI" name in the title. Hell, I bet Comcast will even take 
> its own research budget and give it over to some projects with AI in the name 
> and GPUs in the hardware. (Jason Livingood, I feel sorry for you, but I'd 
> recommend turning your attention to optimizing audio chat services research 
> rather than congestion, if you want to save your job).

could the community try and produce 'traffic simulators' that implement these 
various protocols with a more realistic traffic pattern? something that can be 
turned up or down with a few presets of the mix that we can make available for 
the academics to use for their testing?

David Lang