> On Oct 8, 2015, at 11:34 AM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > >> If ack reductions are so very valuable, what's the chance of doing that on >> an end to end basis instead of in the network? > > a little less than the chance of shutting off IPv4 :-)
Hey, we can dream, can't we? :-) > requiring changes to all the software on each end to enable this is wishful > thinking. The major servers could get the update pretty promtly, but updating > the client side?? not for a long time. Yes, of course. That said, consider trends like http://www.zdnet.com/article/latest-os-share-data-shows-windows-still-dominating-in-pcs/ http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustomb=0 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/137148751123435826/ What that basically says is that corporations tend to pick a version and install every update after testing it. The folks still on XP are very likely people who installed a (potentially pirated) release in 2003 and have probably never updated it. If we can get this into the next MacOSX 10.11 and Windows 10 update cycle, roughly 50% of computers will have it within six months, maybe three. If we can get it into common Linux distributions, we can probably cover the servers as well. 100% deployment - that might take until the XP computers actually all fry. Getting it significantly deployed - I don't see the cause of the pessimism. You're correct that one has to update set-top-boxes and smart TVs. They get updates too, or at least mine do. It doesn't require buying a new TV, it requires getting the updated software.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
