Bjørn Ivar Teigen <bj...@domos.no> writes: > Hi everyone, > > I've recently published a paper on Arxiv which is relevant to the > Bufferbloat problem. I hope it will be helpful in convincing AQM doubters. > Discussions at the recent IAB workshop inspired me to write a detailed > argument for why end-to-end methods cannot avoid latency spikes. I couldn't > find this argument in the literature. > > Here is the Arxiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.00488
I found this a very approachable paper expressing a phenomenon that should be no surprise to anyone on this list: when flow rate drops, latency spikes. > A direct consequence is that we need AQMs at all points in the internet > where congestion is likely to happen, even for short periods, to mitigate > the impact of latency spikes. Here I am assuming we ultimately want an > Internet without lag-spikes, not just low latency on average. This was something I was wondering when reading your paper. How will AQMs help? When the rate drops the AQM may be able to react faster, but it won't be able to affect the flow xmit rate any faster than your theoretical "perfect" propagation time... So in effect, your paper seems to be saying "a flow that saturates the link cannot avoid latency spikes from self-congestion when the link rate drops, and the only way we can avoid this interfering with *other* flows is by using FQ"? Or? Also, another follow-on question that might be worth looking into is short flows: Many flows fit entirely in an IW, or at least never exit slow start. So how does that interact with what you're describing? Is it possible to quantify this effect? -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
