| Workload | Recommended | Avoid | Reason |
|---|
| Bulk WAN transfer (high BDP) | BBR |
Reno | BBR fills BDP without inflating queues; Reno stalls on high RTT × BW products |
| Interactive SSH / telnet | CUBIC |
— | Low BDP; all algorithms similar; CUBIC default on Linux is fine |
| Video streaming (sustained) | BBR |
Reno | BBR maintains stable send rate without loss-triggered drops |
| Datacenter east-west (low RTT) | CUBIC |
BBR | Very low RTT; CUBIC converges fast; BBR's probing adds unnecessary jitter |
| High-loss mobile link | BBR |
Reno | BBR uses BW estimation not loss-based; doesn't misinterpret wireless drops as congestion |
| Fairness with legacy endpoints | CUBIC |
BBR | BBR can unfairly dominate CUBIC/Reno flows in shared bottlenecks (BBRv1 issue) |