[Bloat] review: Deployment of RITE mechanisms, in use-case trial testbeds report part 1

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen toke at toke.dk
Sun Feb 28 08:39:16 EST 2016

Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins at gmail.com> writes:

> I wouldn't complain that I can't sustain 2056Kbps goodput when my fair
> share of the shaped bandwidth is 2000Kbps.  The results might be
> showing a significant degradation, or it could be a marginal one that
> pushes over the boundary (between the 2056k and 1427k encodes).  Which
> of those conclusions you start from might be influenced by whether
> you're developing a different AQM, hmm.

Exactly. And note how they just so happen to pick 11 total flows (10
competing, one video) to share the bottleneck, putting the per-flow
throughput just below the rate needed to go up one quality level. What a
coincidence. At least it shows how difficult it is to design experiments
that put fairness queueing in a bad light ;)

Oh, and of course HAS is in itself a hack to work around badly managed
queues in the network. In a nicely fairness queued world, we could do
away with HAS entirely and just, y'know, stream things at the desired


More information about the Bloat mailing list