On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:51 PM Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > The problem is that any protocol is mostly blind to the underlying > > network (and that can change). To use dave's analogy it is like being > > put in the driver seat of a vehicle blind folded. When you step on the > > gas you don't know if it is a dragster, jet fighter, or a soviet > > tractor. The only way a protocol can tell is based on the perceived > > inertia and when it runs into things... > > Actually, I've made the argument to IETF TCPM that this is not true. You > can be able to communicate earlier data from previous flows on the same > connection so that new flows can re-learn this. > > If no flow the past hour has been able to run faster than 1 megabit/s and > always PMTUD to 1460 bytes MTU outbound, then there is good chance that > the next flow will encounter the same thing. Why not use this information > when guessing how things will behave going forward?
I've actually assumed that the insanely big providers actually did this, that they did a lookup on connect into BGP ASN database (aha! this address is 4G, This is DSL, This may be wifi, this one is weird). Keeping a few bits of state around awhile for every ipv4 address in the world today is trivial with today's technologies. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat