From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 74B3C3B2A4; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id a18-v6so16169973qtj.4; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:07:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EidGvo3jnYhlzj8Ac5FngmTCAV0wu1SNCN1B1l2f8i4=; b=l8W7RVdXJkCN2UOKt3+/4aGObrE+Z0KDPeHSy7KucHhnB7+yJ4KuqT2DAfcvP7RmlR cyFzZIePLyWFWcJ8+aDZUV1QQiRIV3lGc/lsMHousnwYPLCUdAWCSsjJB2vDnoSyAlGQ luNF5RGMBZJQkxqRGhGDoCwLFOq/ZtSF6DFMruPqzVeUaq74gBLQ79mZUcoECseIbKOV ZWO/vu9cJ6b4jSBfXTPBTuJQ8QOpzKtc89qVV4TfXkIL0R/yCAD1psT0zvRSJAwKGBH3 16kP+ffiFWT0S0iuf6vqiBxy1nrn9A6To3MD2ks4jaSP3YnS5fG1ZKFwFhr1M/e5LX0p XLfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EidGvo3jnYhlzj8Ac5FngmTCAV0wu1SNCN1B1l2f8i4=; b=GhYQHCRiMtuGNPrlfoZvnZP2p8ViG7aV+4rCm+lXik68hI+5Dqd/lfDQyyhn7JXkp4 X/lLsMhhT2mmjmrsLKMXGKEfhdtI0UgBIzQ90XfRi6i5JzudQZXduo3tRXudps+jFnQW BM/CR1apvu1BnE+C5UCVpYeur3qxVMtledOLWD7HDK8TcHENMq3lXJ1AH+oEBpDQ/AjQ vtLduj4Z3JvzpUw5e8Awcz88v+S8OaCD+5XRvS0jIywkc+eFhdsdUtmoXSt5YbZVZrVT k6GTp3Ltd8yOylABwB7tnUviFecJs4qg72E9kR3KC92ZpzuQ1y1w3Vc1/m5pJvSN0fCQ XQoQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3i7WMrNRx2TS18a22denPYcvFoiGeU7b6FucQFt/aUQlj+bBw5 nZR1WBWZ/MzL1wtPsiNMf6RLVXpUtcXSDQrJeZg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKK39MkoDh5bnxHGhN0OOzDX2OAyc2XGH27VRV2WUz7kiRcLEoBmbauLjqoiErxR3ajIXVlELYoFMEPLjLdYjNA= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c344:: with SMTP id j4-v6mr11652767qvi.245.1529348824978; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:07:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:aed:24f0:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:07:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1529339194.276412941@apps.rackspace.com> References: <1529339194.276412941@apps.rackspace.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:07:04 -0700 Message-ID: To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Invisibility of bufferbloat and its remedies X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:07:06 -0000 On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:26 AM, dpreed@deepplum.com wrote: > https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/3-easy-tips-to-fix-constant-buffering/ > > It's distressing how little the tech press understands the real problem. Yea, that one is pretty sad. It still remains a field of active academic research: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=3D2018&q=3Dbufferbloat&hl=3Den&as= _sdt=3D0,5 > > Of course, cable companies like Charter and ATT who have mostly DOCSIS 2 = gear deployed can't admit to their plant being bloat-causing. > > In fact it protects their cable business against cord cutters. Lacking competition in general, doesn't help. What I am actually more frustrated about is the network neutrality advocates A) conflating "buffering" with malfeasance, rather than a technical problem and B) Using politics rather than technology to attempt to achieve their goals. If *only* a few prominent members of that side of affairs "got" that some better technology, deployed, might solve some of their problems and make the internet better for everyone, we'd make more progress. fq_codel is a uniquely "american" algorithm, in that it gives the "little guy" a little boost until it achieves parity with everyone else. > > And the solution is needed in the CMTS once neighbors all start becoming = heavier users, because it is a shared buffering pool with no fairness or bl= oat protection. My principle observation is that with the changes in traffic patterns in the last decade, and the predominance of application-rate limited streaming, that most folk are merely forced into a bandwidth tier that is less rarely annoying. This does not of course solve the corporate gateway problems very well, nor does it truly kill it dead, but until that day when "the right stuff" is readily available, and more informed demand exists. I was sad to see recently a cisco white paper that even ignored their own work on pie. > Still, routers with queue management that reduce bloat would help a lot, = if "buffering" is seen frequently under load. > > So why isn't anyone talking about this problem after at least a decade of= knowing it, and knowing how to fix it? > > I blame IETF members, individually and collectively. If ietf exists for a= ny reason other than as a boondoggle for world travel, it's for resolving i= ssues like this one. Heh. I have essentially abandoned the IETF as the inmates are running the asylum, and trying to continue to make our points there was seemingly fruitless - and out of my budget. I'd rather stay home and get better code out the door. Or come up with some other set of orgs to annoy into paying attention. I would not mind going to another IETF meeting to give a preso (on, say, cake), but I'm unwilling to front the funds or time anymore. > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619