On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr> wrote: >> Recently Ryan Mounce added ack filtering cabilities to the cake qdisc. >> The benefits were pretty impressive at a 50x1 Down/Up ratio: > > If I read this posting right, you're only measuring bulk performance. > What about interactive traffic, when there's only one or two data segments in > flight at a given time
In this design, you can only filter out an ack when you have a queue of them. I am thinking saying "filter" has been misleading. Tho plenty stateless ack filters exist. ack-queue-compression? >> I'd rather like to have a compelling list of reasons why not to do >> this! > > I haven't looked at Cake in detail, and I haven't put much thought into > ACK filtering, but off the top of my head: > > - not risking breaking any of the TCP-related algorithms that depend on > ACKs arriving in a timely manner (AIMD, Nagle, Eifel, etc.), > especially in the case of just one segment in flight; > - not contributing to the ossification of the Internet by giving an > unfair advantage to TCP over other protocols; > - limiting the amount of knowledge that middleboxes have of the > transport-layer protocols, which leads to further ossification; > - avoiding complexity in middleboxes, which leads to a more brittle > Internet; > - not encouraging ISPs to deploy highly asymmetric links. I'll add these to my list! > > This is not my area of expertise, and therefore I don't feel competent to > have an opinion, but I think that before you deploy ACK filtering, you > really should consider the worries expressed above and whatever other > worries more competent people might have. been worrying ever since I touched the wet paint! > -- Juliusz -- Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619 _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat