[ih] bufferbloat and modern congestion control (was 4004)
Barbara Denny
b_a_denny at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 6 11:10:15 PDT 2024
Yes providers don't seem to be very good at doing anything for users. In my residence I kept a 2wire gateway for an extremely long time because I could actually look at stats, etc. Whenever I had a problem my provider's support people would look at the age of the equipment and immediately declare that was a problem and I needed to get a new router. Of course I didn't believe them and never replaced it. In a while whatever problem I was trying to get them to look at disappeared. Once they even sent me what they called a commercial router for free after x calls. I never took the time to get it out of the box.
I feel sorry for people.
barbara
On Sunday, October 6, 2024 at 10:22:46 AM PDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
Yes, I agree that Bufferbloat is the most likely root cause of what I
saw. In fact, that testing experience is when I actually heard the term
"bufferbloat" for the first time and learned what it meant. I can
imagine how it probably happened over the years. It was undoubtedly
far easier to just add now-inexpensive memory to components inside the
network than it was to invent, and deploy, appropriate mechanisms to
replace the rudimentary "placeholders" of Source Quench, Type Of
Service, hop-based routing, et al, in all of the components and
organizations involved in the Internet.
But what I also discovered was more disturbing than bufferbloat.
Using the same tools I remembered from 40 years ago, we determined that
the bloated buffers were likely deep in the bowels of the Internet -
most likely inside a fiber carrier several ISPs away from either
endpoint of the test. Our ability to analyze was hindered by the lack
of pervasive support today for mechanisms such as pings and traceroutes
at various points along the route. Parts of the route through the
Internet were cloaked in impenetrable (to us mere Users) shields.
But the disturbing part was the attitude of the "providers" who operated
the various pieces involved along the route we were trying to use. Some
of them, deep in the bowels of the Internet, wouldn't even talk to us
mere Users. Their customers were other ISPs. They don't talk to
retail customers. The ISPs involved all did their tests and
measurements, and reported that *their* part of the Internet was working
just fine. The software vendors in the Users' computers similarly said
their technology was working as it should, nothing to be fixed.
No one knew much about Source Quench or other congestion control issues
and mechanisms. Or Type of Service. I assume that the IETF had by now
also deprecated even the rudimentary and ineffective mechanisms of
Source Quench, with no replacement mechanisms defined and deployed.
My User friend tried all sorts of possible fixes. As taught by
Marketing, he upgraded to higher speeds of Internet service. That was
supposed to fix whatever problem you were experiencing. It didn't. He
switched to several different ISPs, at each end of the route. No joy.
This finger-pointing environment results in a situation where all of the
"operators" involved in my User's Internet communications believe that
everything of theirs is working fine and the problem must be somewhere
else. But the User believes that the Internet is broken, unsuitable for
what he's trying to do, and no one is working to fix it.
That polar disagreement between the Users and Providers of the Internet
was a disturbing (to me at least) revelation.
I suspect the situation will deteriorate, since I frequently see
articles describing plans to use the Internet for tasks involving
real-time remote manipulation (telemedicine, remote surgery, distant
control of vehicles, equipment, etc.). My experience is admittedly
anecdotal, but I suspect it's not unique.
I recommended to my User friend that he might try installing ancient
technology - dial-up modems at each end! Amazingly, you can still
purchase dial-up modems, even from Amazon. But I also advised him that
even such old tech might not be an improvement. If his "voice call"
became VOIP at any point along the way, his problems might not change much.
His alternative was to forget about doing remote operations over the
Internet. It might be easier to simply move.
Jack Haverty
On 10/5/24 23:29, Vint Cerf wrote:
> sounds like your test discovered bufferbloat....
>
> v
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 6:28 PM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
>
> IIRC:
>
> When the internal mechanisms (such as SQ) were being debated and
> choices made to create TCP/IP V4 for adoption as the DoD Standard,
> the technology world was quite different. At the time (early
> 1980s), gateways had very little memory - sometimes only enough to
> hold one or at most a few IP datagrams. If a datagram arrived
> and there was no place to hold it, SQ back to the source was a way
> to say "Slow down. I just had to drop your last datagram".
>
> Over the decades, memory became a lot more available. So gateways
> could easily have space to queue many datagrams. In one test I did
> just a few years ago, a stream of datagrams was sent from one site
> to another. All were received intact and in order as sent. No SQ
> messages were received. But latency soared. Some datagrams took
> more than 30 seconds to reach their destination. Memory had
> become cheap enough that datagrams could just be held as long as
> needed.
>
> For anyone involved in operating a piece of the Internet, or for
> diagnosing users' complaints like "it's too slow", ICMP's
> facilities were crucial tools. They were flawed and incomplete,
> but still useful as ways to figure out what was happening.
>
> When the TCP/IP RFCs were adopted as the DoD Standard, ICMP was
> not included. As someone involved in diagnosing operational
> problems, we yelled, screamed, cajoled, encouraged, lobbied, and
> did whatever we could to get the DoD procurement folks to add ICMP
> to their list of required implementations.
>
> This discussion about SQ reminded me of another "gateway issue"
> from the 1980s ICCB to-do list - "End-Middle Interactions". I'll
> write what I remember about that separately.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> On 10/5/24 11:26, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
>> All sorts of goodies:
>>
>> ICMP Echo (what used to power Ping until people decided they didn't like
>> folks probing)
>>
>> ICMP Unreachable (port or host)
>>
>> ICMP Problem Param (diagnostic)
>>
>> many more.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 10:50 AM Vint Cerf via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> isn't there more to ICMP than source quench? Seems wrong to ignore all ICMP
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> v
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 12:04 PM Greg Skinner via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 3, 2024, at 9:02 AM, Greg Skinner via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Forwarded for Barbara
>>>>>
>>>>> ====
>>>>>
>>>>> Having trouble emailing again so i did some trimming on the original
>>>> message....
>>>>> Putting my packet radio hat back on, a source quench message could help
>>>> disambiguate whether loss in the network is due to congestion or
>>> something
>>>> else (like in wireless, loss due to harsh environments, jamming,
>>>> mobility). I also think it is not obvious what you should do when you
>>>> receive a source quench, but to me trying to understand this is just part
>>>> of trying to see if we can make things work better. How about what you
>>>> could do when you don't receive a source quench but have experienced
>>> loss?
>>>>> How is network coding coming along these days?
>>>>>
>>>>> barbara
>>>> Any serious attempts to reinstitute ICMP source quench would have to go
>>>> through the IETF RFC process again because it’s been deprecated for some
>>>> time. [1] Also, many sites block ICMP outright (even though they’ve been
>>>> warned not to do this). [2]
>>>>
>>>> --gregbo
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6633/
>>>> [2]
>>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/icmp-dilemma-why-blocking-makes-you-networking-noob-ronald-bartels-ikvnf
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>> Vint Cerf
>>> Google, LLC
>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>> +1 (571) 213 1346 <tel:(571)%20213-1346>
>>>
>>>
>>> until further notice
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
>
>
> until further notice
>
>
>
--
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list