From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0B1D21F1C0 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 829589C; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 02:24:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797F69A; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 02:24:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 02:24:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: dpreed@reed.com In-Reply-To: <1373223178.486913695@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: References: <1373223178.486913695@apps.rackspace.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] happy 4th! X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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, 08 Jul 2013 00:24:30 -0000 On Sun, 7 Jul 2013, dpreed@reed.com wrote: > So when somebody "throws that in your face", just confidently use the > words "Bullshit, show me evidence", and ignore the ignorant person who Oh, the people that have told me this are definitely not ignorant. Quite the contrary. ... and by the way, they're optimising for the case where a single TCP flow from a 10GE connected host is traversing a 10G based backbone, and they want this single TCP session to use every spare capacity the network has to give. Not 90% of available capcity, but 100%. This is the kind of people that have a lot of influence and causes core routers to get designed with 600 ms of buffering (well, latest generation ones are down to 50ms buffering). We're talking billion dollar investments by hardware manufacturers. We're talking core routers of latest generation that are still being put into production as we speak. Calling them ignorant and trying to wave them off by that kind of reasonsing isn't productive. Why not just implement the high RTT testing part and prove that you're right instead of just saying you're right? THe bufferbloat initiative is trying to change how things are done. Burden of proof is here. When I participate in IETF TCP WG, they talk goodput. They're not talking latency and interacting well with UDP based interactive streams. They're optimising goodput. If we want buffers to be lower, we need to convince people that this doesn't hugely affect goodput. I have not so far seen tests with FQ_CODEL with a simulated 100ms extra latency one-way (200ms RTT). They might be out there, but I have not seen them. I encourage these tests to be done. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se