Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would work like this:
Say client A (loss-based) and client B (BBR) are on the same congested network:
A would fill the bottleneck buffer until the buffer overflows, then back off quickly due to the high number of dropped packets. This creates a sawtooth-like pattern of gradual ramp-up and sharp falloff.
B would detect the bottleneck bandwidth and the RTT, so it knows to back off before the bottleneck buffer overflows. Then, while A is slowly ramping up again, B would detect that there's no congestion and send more traffic. B would then gradually back off as A fills the queue again, and so on.
If this is right, then BBR would co-exist well enough with connections with loss-based algorithms.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would work like this:
Say client A (loss-based) and client B (BBR) are on the same congested network:
A would fill the bottleneck buffer until the buffer overflows, then back off quickly due to the high number of dropped packets. This creates a sawtooth-like pattern of gradual ramp-up and sharp falloff.
B would detect the bottleneck bandwidth and the RTT, so it knows to back off before the bottleneck buffer overflows. Then, while A is slowly ramping up again, B would detect that there's no congestion and send more traffic. B would then gradually back off as A fills the queue again, and so on.
If this is right, then BBR would co-exist well enough with connections with loss-based algorithms.