3 ms·
Why would he start sending patches for them? He already benefits from BBR himself. He doesn’t need to lift everyone else to enjoy the benefits, unlike the IPv4
by netheril96 8y ago
Why would he start sending patches for them? He already benefits from BBR himself. He doesn’t need to lift everyone else to enjoy the benefits, unlike the IPv4 to IPv6 transition.
- ori_b 8y agoAnd I benefit from driving on the sidewalk, why should I have to care how my car interacts with those tcp-using pedestrians? If you break TCP, and your answer is that "we'd be ok if every system switched to it", then you'd better start working on switching every system.
- Dylan16807 8y agoWell I was responding to a claim that it would ruin all traffic, including the people that switched. It's not my job to defend against an entirely different argument. And this kind of thing needs more numbers in general. Maybe in a large mix of traffic, outside the edge case of a saturated link with two streams, it doesn't dominate too badly. Maybe because TCP incorrectly blocks so often, the average 'victim' user still benefits overall because only some of their devices are unpatched.
- ori_b 8y agoOr maybe you shouldn't really be discussing actually deploying things that harm users of the most widely used protocol out there, but instead change the new thing to deal with the world that it lives in .
- Dylan16807 8y agoThe existing congestion control algorithms have flaws that make them slow down far too much in certain situations. I don't know if it's possible to make something that doesn't have those flaws and never outcompetes them. We can probably do better than BBR, but I don't know if we can do a perfect job.
- netheril96 8y agoYou analogy doesn't work, because there is nothing pedestrians can do to counter cars driving on the sidewalk. But there is a counter to TCP BBR--adopting TCP BBR yourself.