IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Is bufferbloat a real problem?

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com> Sun, 01 March 2015 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1681A1B00 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:42:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huX0ub00yTUt for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com (maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:550:3800:203::3131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 184801A1ADF for <aqm@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:42:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harbor31.somerville.occnc.com (harbor31.somerville.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:550:3800:203::3231]) (authenticated bits=128) by maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t211gR3Y042620; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:42:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@ipv6.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201503010142.t211gR3Y042620@maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com>
To: KK <kk@cs.ucr.edu>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:16:12 -0800." <D11664D4.2EEC%kk@cs.ucr.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <42618.1425174147.1@harbor31.somerville.occnc.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:42:27 -0500
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/Llf2LcfTWKFNwOhgY6FprP1lcxk>
Cc: aqm@ietf.org, davecb@spamcop.net
Subject: Re: [aqm] Is bufferbloat a real problem?
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@ipv6.occnc.com
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 01:42:44 -0000

In message <D11664D4.2EEC%kk@cs.ucr.edu>
KK writes:
 
> This could also be done by not having to depend on "loss" as the primary
> source of feedback...
>  
> -- 
> K. K. Ramakrishnan
> Professor
> Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
> Rm. 332, Winston Chung Hall
> Tel: (951) 827-2480
>  
> Web Page: http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~kk/


DECBit was a disaster.

Is there something else you had in mind?

Curtis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email