Re: [Cerowrt-devel] happy 4th!

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, dpreed@reed.com wrote:

> I was suggesting that there is no reason to be intimidated.

I was not intimidated, I just lacked data to actually reply to the 
statement made.

> And yes, according to the dictionary definition, they are ignorant - as 
> in they don't know what they are talking about, and don't care to.

I object to the last part of the statement. If you're a person who has 
been involved in winning an Internet Land Speed Record you probably care, 
but you're have knowledge for a certain application and a certain purpose, 
which might not be applicable to the common type of home connection usage 
today. It doesn't mean the use case is not important or that person is 
opposing solving bufferbloat problem.

> As to being constructive, I'm not convinced that these people can be 
> convinced that their dismissal of bufferbloat and their idea that 
> "goodput" is a useful Internet concept are incorrect.

I haven't heard any dismissal of the problem, only that they optimize for 
a different use case, and they're concerned that their use case will 
suffer if buffers are smaller. This is the reason I want data because if 
FQ_CODEL gets similar results then their use case is not hugely negatively 
affected, and there is data showing it helps a lot for a lot of other use 
cases, then they shouldn't have much to worry about and can stop arguing.

Thinking of Galileo, he didn't walk around saying "the earth revolves 
around the sun" and when people questioned him, he said "check it out for 
yourself, prove your point, I don't need to prove mine!", right?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se