Re: [Cerowrt-devel] happy 4th!

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>]

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:

    > On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Dave Taht wrote:

    >> Suggestions as to things to test and code to test them welcomed. In

    > I'm wondering a bit what the shallow buffering depth means to
    > higher-RTT connections. When I advocate bufferbloat solutions I usually
    > get thrown in my face that shallow buffering means around-the-world
    > TCP-connections will behave worse than with a lot of buffers
    > (traditional truth being that you need to be able to buffer RTT*2).

huh?  The end points might need more buffers to receive more packets (some of
which might be out of order), but the intermediate routers need nothing.
None of the bufferbloat stuff reduces the receive buffers of an end-point.

On long latency links, (the worse being geosynchronous satellite), the link
*itself* stores data.
(a historical exploitation of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory )

So, who is saying this to you, and what exactly do they think bufferbloat is
about?

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [