TCP congestion control and large router buffers

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sun Dec 19 19:16:12 UTC 2010


On 12/9/10 7:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Vasil Kolev wrote:
> 
>> I wonder why this hasn't made the rounds here. From what I see, a
>> change in this part (e.g. lower buffers in customer routers, or a
>> change (yet another) to the congestion control algorithms) would do
>> miracles for end-user perceived performance and should help in some
>> way with the net neutrality dispute.
> 
> I'd say this is common knowledge and has been for a long time.
> 
> In the world of CPEs, lowest price and simplicity is what counts, so
> nobody cares about buffer depth and AQM, that's why you get ADSL CPEs
> with 200+ ms of upstream FIFO buffer (no AQM) in most devices.

you're going to see more of it, at a minimum cpe are going to have to be
able to drain a gig-e into a port that may be only 100Mb/s. The QOS
options available in a ~$100 cpe router are adequate for the basic purpose.

d-link dir-825 or 665 are examples of such devices

> Personally I have MQC configured on my interface which has assured bw
> for small packets and ssh packets, and I also run fair-queue to make tcp
> sessions get a fair share. I don't know any non-cisco devices that does
> this.

the consumer cpe that care seem to be mostly oriented along keeping
gaming and voip from being interfereed with by p2p and file transfers.





More information about the NANOG mailing list