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 3627521F1B5 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 22:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 342769C; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 07:48:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5B49A; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 07:48:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 07:48:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: dpreed@reed.com In-Reply-To: <1373316621.879922633@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: References: <1373223178.486913695@apps.rackspace.com> <1373316621.879922633@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; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:48:26 -0000 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