On 10/9/2015 3:31 PM, David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Touch wrote: > >> On 10/9/2015 3:16 PM, David Lang wrote: >> ... >>>> Wouldn't it have been cleaner with more appropriate network >>>> provisioning? >>> >>> "more appropriate network provisioning" is not always going to result in >>> more bandwidth the way you want it to. >>> >>> If there is established infrastructure that can handle X in one >>> direction and 100X in the other direction, but "appropriate network >>> provisioning" requires that the ratio never be more than 3x, it's not >>> going to magically increase bandwidth in one direction, all it can do is >>> cap bandwidth in the other direction (throwing away capacity) >> >> Sure, but we're dealing with a problem that arises when the ratio can't >> support 40:1. That's quite an asymmetry except in extreme cases where we >> already know extreme measures are required (e.g., satcom with telco >> backchannels). > > that's not the only situation we're talking about here. > > Also, keep in mind that your 40:1 ratio assumes that there is no traffic > going the other direction.
FWIW, I wasn't - I was assuming that 40:1 is fine if what you intend to support is browsing only. > 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. Joe _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
