[Bloat] [bbr-dev] Re: "BBR" TCP patches submitted to linux kernel

[Klatsky, Carl]

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> 
> > We are curious why you choose the single-queued AQM. Is it just for
> > the sake of testing?
> 
> Non-flow aware AQM is the most commonly deployed "queue
> management" on the Internet today. Most of them are just stupid FIFOs
> with taildrop, and the buffer size can be anywhere from super small to huge
> depending on equipment used and how it's configured.
> 
> Any proposed TCP congestion avoidance algorithm to be deployed on the
> wider Internet has to some degree be able to handle this deployment
> scenario without killing everything else it's sharing capacity with.
> 
> Dave Tähts testing case where BBR just kills Cubic makes me very concerned.

If I am understanding BBR correctly, that is working in the sender to receiver direction.  In Dave's test running TCP BBR & TCP CUBIC with a single queue AQM, where CUBIC gets crushed.  Silly question, but the single queue AQM was also operating in the in sender to receiver direction for this test, yes?