Re: [e2e] What is a good burst? -- AQM evaluation guidelines
"Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]> Mon, 16 Dec 2013 07:34:52 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.routing.aqm,gmane.network.routing.bufferbloat,gmane.network.end2end |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Dec 15, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred, > > Jonathan Morton, Michael Scharf & I took Naeem's question to mean "What should an AQM assume the size of a good burst is?" whereas I think you and David C-B took the question to mean "What should an end-system take the size of a good burst to be?". I can't comment on what he means. I took the question as "what should a system that is in receipt of what it might consider a 'burst', and more especially a 'good burst', to be?" I don't know that a sending transport (which is to be distinguished from the queueing arrangement in that same system) or a receiving system *has* a definition of a "good" or "bad" burst. The one is sending data, which in the context of y two examples might be a good or bad idea, and the other is receiving it. From the receiver's perspective, the data either arrived or it didn't; if it arrived, there is no real argument for not delivering it to its application... _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 195 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSrq0abjEdbHIsm0MRAgMIAJ4lLmSETxkaMAigHrXGpPxbHp0fzACgn/ep I0xrsI7E7+2EKohbKjOvMCs= =IglE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----