Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression

Joe Touch <> Sat, 10 October 2015 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12DB1B4F29; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SAFdjDeB1_Ba; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74B441B4F2A; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t9A01Jhq027697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: David Lang <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:01:19 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>,, "" <>, "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram \(Wolfram\)" <>, Greg White <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] [tcpm] TCP ACK Suppression
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 00:01:57 -0000

FWIW, I'm using "you" metaphorically, both here and in other posts.

I.e., whomever is pushing this solution is supporting a business model
that's broken. I don't much care whether the proponents are employed by
that business or not.

There is always tension between commercial interests (and proponents)
and the model of the Internet. The Internet presents a dangerous
opportunity for incredible gain without responsibility.

The tragedy of the commons is very real, and this is a good example of
it. It doesn't matter whether the solutions are being pushed by those
profiting or by those who see only the local, short-term benefit rather
then the potential long term impact.

As has been discussed on TCPM, there may be ways to reduce the impact of
ACKs on the net without having an intermediate device interfere. Let's
have that discussion there and work together on a solution that benefits
everyone - avoiding unnecessary load on the net AND preserving the E2E
semantics of TCP so it can continue to evolve for future capabilities.


On 10/9/2015 4:31 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> If you have one person trying to watch streaming video while another
>>> person is uploading pictures to facebook, you can run into trouble at
>>> much more even ratios.
>> Restated, you run into trouble because you sold a service you didn't
>> provision for ;-)
>> (or, more to the point, you took a gamble that you could sell a useful
>> service with a particular assumption about traffic ratios, and that
>> assumption no longer holds)
>> Again, IMO TCP isn't to be tampered with merely to support a business
>> model, and that's all I see so far.
> Where did you get the idea that I work for an ISP, let alone a cable ISP
> or had any influence in designing or building such networks. I don't.
> You are assigning motives here that are clearly false.
> As I keep re-stating, this is not a cable/DOCSIS issue, it applies to
> all sorts of things, with Wifi and Cellular being the newest (and
> arguably biggest) sources of the network flow getting quantomized.
> David Lang