[Cerowrt-devel] happy 4th!
swmike at swm.pp.se
Tue Jul 9 01:48:22 EDT 2013
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, dpreed at 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
> 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 at swm.pp.se
More information about the Cerowrt-devel