3 ms·
I think the author is saying that there ARE solutions, but none of them are really viable. Seeing the future obviously can't happen. Building a higher capacit
by Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
I think the author is saying that there ARE solutions, but none of them are really viable.
Seeing the future obviously can't happen. Building a higher capacity network is just wasted money. Breaking NN is going to be unpopular, not to mention determination of "not latency sensitive" is going to be difficult to impossible unless there's a "not latency sensitive" flag on TCP packets that people actually use in good faith. And flooding the network with more redundant packets is just going to be a colossal waste of bandwidth and could easily make congestion issues worse.
- travisb 2y agoDSCP already exists, but there's never been an Internet-wide incentive to use it correctly. It is theoretically plausible that end-users could mark their packets 'latency/jitter sensitive' or 'high throughput'. If there was an Internet-wide consensus that those two options made useful trade-offs then there would be an incentive to use it correctly. That would be as NN-safe as any other scheme. For example, maybe 'latency/jitter sensitive' buffers less, but at a 25+% throughput penalty. 'High throughput' would then be faster, but have much higher latency/jitter. The trick would be ensuring fairness without requiring too much hardware at scale.
- sulandor 2y agocorrect. if dscp would work, we would not need l4s. but treating the "importance" of flow inversely to their bandwidth usage works astonishingly well (flow-queuing/fair-queuing)