Hi Bob,
I agree; nevertheless, there are still ways to improve the timeliness of
loss recovery [over what is standardized in IETF] and reduce the dependency
on RTO for TCP. Obviously other transport protocols could also use some of
the same ideas.
For example, see Linux - lost retransmission detection, which is relevant
when you run into burst loss scenarios, is only available there, but not
specified anywhere. Or the recent addition to rfc3751-bis to improve SACK
loss recovery at end-of-stream. Or some ideas (partially implemented in
Linux already) to use synergistic information available to address spurious
retransmissions or early lost retransmission recovery...
Thus loss is IMHO less of an issue - if all possible indications are used to
deal with them in a timely (RTT) manner - than increasing RTT needlessly to
a few times the base RTT. Of course, a decent AQM and ECN marking scheme
would improve things even further, no question about that!
Best regards,
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Briscoe" <[email protected]>
A reasonable* sized buffer is still needed to absorb bursts without loss.
If builders of kit make their buffers smaller in response to our
criticism, during bursts users will experience loss rather than delay.
That will lead transports to wait for a timeout to detect these losses. So
small buffers would just introduce a new cause of poor responsiveness. The
focus should be on small queues, not small buffers.
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
