Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] per-flow scheduling

[Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1408 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:32 PM Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 24 Jun, 2019, at 9:57 pm, David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:
> >
> > TCP doesn't have a "natural sawtooth" - that is the response of TCP to a
> particular "queueing discipline" in a particular kind of a router - it
> would respond differently (and does!) if the router were to drop packets
> randomly on a Poisson basis, for example. No sawtooth at all.
>
> I challenge you to show me a Reno or CUBIC based connection's cwnd
> evolution that *doesn't* resemble a sawtooth, regardless of the congestion
> signalling employed.  And I will show you that it either has severe
> underutilisation of the link, or is using SCE signals.  The sawtooth is
> characteristic of the AIMD congestion control algorithm.
>

Jonathan,
even if it is news to nobody,
AIMD does not necessarily converge to a limit cycle (e.g. a sawtooth). It
depends on  some regularity conditions of the AIMD law and congestion
feedback too.
For instance,  AIMD delay based congestion control or AIMD with certain
 ECN laws may display no limit cycles. Still under certain conditions.
Just to recall that the problem is a little more complex than that in
general.



>
>  - Jonathan Morton
> _______________________________________________
> Ecn-sane mailing list
> Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2314 bytes --]