Re: [aqm] [tcpPrague] L4S status update

[David Collier-Brown <[e-mail]>]

On 28/11/16 10:42 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> On 29 Nov, 2016, at 04:55, Matt Mathis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Bob's point is that fq_anything forfeits any mechanism for an application or user to imply the value of the traffic by how much congestion they are willing to inflict on other traffic.
> Yes, it does.
>
> I actually consider that a good thing, because most applications will, given the choice, choose to inflict more congestion on other traffic in order to boost their own performance.  There are honourable exceptions, but it’s not a behaviour we can solely rely on.
>
> For example, Steam uses between four and eight parallel TCP streams (I can’t figure out what the number depends on) to receive game updates, when one or two would already saturate most domestic Internet connections.  This magnifies the impact on other things the user might be doing with that connection, such as - ironically enough - playing multiplayer games.  You’d think Valve, of all companies, would keep that in mind.

Valve is like a lot of companies in "exciting" areas, and doesn't stop 
to think. Like a lot of other game companies just throw resources at 
problems, willy-nilly. The excessive tuning of Steam is typical.

The gamers know better, but treat the problem as a game and think up 
cool workarounds (;-))

Neither of them falls into any kind of economic domain.

--dave (at WorldGaming) c-b

-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
[e-mail]           |                      -- Mark Twain