From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (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 E43663B2A4; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id r8so32089372oij.5; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 07:15:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UOOIjyu60SilIPIVbfSnYUyzzJKW3oyIl0RXqgJin2Y=; b=krY4lzG5oPdFZjWgcUy93D1U+3B+/5EUF0aejDbuLmuJLOK13inqIHsKt5DYuYakbq VcpXb5a6MoYeAE1CkV8uzs1q9gFL/Flqps3XhbkKAkM0n5Us1XHbIw1mMIxIAycCkm41 ObtrJlxErhM4rnU6Xz0IHH2UfDknqeCUiZMkz6ycJfN2S9dN33k7g2fkJmIMmlLOQaFm dGf/IbAzu0GiC5f0GTdNTARCkCaI3NZUheN45lZeBvbDBjWzwW6Kk8UMbq+aZ32JjdMp VtZ/fUl5mZ9OgN8BCfgxhevu+Yn0FFG25QNL78eEM/FBdZIXVmNznUAJab7pCScJknLi n52g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UOOIjyu60SilIPIVbfSnYUyzzJKW3oyIl0RXqgJin2Y=; b=qWv9bJwOazJ/c9RQHriBvO/92RIK+Qp51Gaa5+y+AkEGESLL4mnkqYplxwsRHswZtK 571eoNh1ljnCPZboYOaTZukCXj9xJHCqbChCr/NMTitc8lIO/+1meTuhCoJPjen9tZnP 9FdqsAn+EP87qOc/kt5j3sVZTi47sh+m4ToUDJLTU+5UZZ1bmk0frth6ktQSTfL3dfKn r7T8UPCS0u/8Ndm2XDTVTZueaTMVuxLOxNHmFZ0dSrpDlZrfT9mi5MepXb8RrQlJnydL sGklYylq2gQy7TLAmy9MElderYC91G6mvO7kRB9aWB0xiTaKv7ekuZF/DFAfyg+xa8ZK JQEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FXiqMkg/TzkQHYMj2KZxYjqMV61MwfWP/Vk/sUzkvOJeXRADL vvPBfH7bjz8KNxo/s1F+jFUoXIjnpwAcml+FxA4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9frigoYvsEr45JcMu565NMobWrtezjfuZW/f4SZQLGsntYfQK2kGI947m57Ym1ZoXpe9aql1UFugVDMV4IPI= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ab89:: with SMTP id u131mr3966929oie.3.1594044903145; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 07:15:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Sterling Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:14:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Luca Muscariello Cc: Dave Taht , Make-Wifi-fast , Carlo Augusto Grazia , jamshid@whatsapp.com, bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 10:35:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Bloat] the future belongs to pacing X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 14:15:04 -0000 On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:09 AM Luca Muscariello wrote: > If BBR can fix that by having a unique model for all these cases that would make deprecation, as intended in the paper, > likely to happen. Interesting! Thank you all for helping a layperson like me understand. Obviously getting CC / latency control "correct" under wifi is a difficult problem. I am wondering if you (the experts) have confidence we can solve it -- that is, can end-users eventually see low latency by default with standard gear? Or are shared transmission mediums like wifi doomed to require large buffers for throughput, which means low latency can't be something we can have "out of the box" -- ? Is sacrificing throughput for latency required for "always low" latency on wifi? Thanks, Dan