Ich habe keine Erfahrungen mit beiden TCP CCAs. Allerdings hatte ich auch nie Probleme mit dem standardmäßig verwendeten CUBIC.
Ich würde sagen, probier es aus und mach ein paar Benchmark-Tests, wenn es dich interessiert.
PS: Wikipedia sagt dazu:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion_control#TCP_BBR schrieb
When implemented within YouTube, BBR yielded an average of 4% higher network throughput and up to 14% in some countries.[26] BBR is also available for QUIC. It is available for Linux TCP since Linux 4.9.[27][28]
BBR is efficient and fast, but its fairness to non-BBR streams is disputed. While Google's presentation shows BBR co-existing well with CUBIC,[24] researchers like Geoff Huston and Hock, Bless and Zitterbart finds it unfair to other streams and not scalable.[29] Hock et al also found "some severe inherent issues such as increased queuing delays, unfairness, and massive packet loss" in the BBR implementation of Linux 4.9.[30]
Soheil Abbasloo et al. (authors of C2TCP) show that BBR doesn't perform well in dynamic environments such as cellular networks.[9][10] They have also shown that BBR has an unfairness issue. For instance, when a CUBIC flow (which is the default TCP implementation in Linux, Android, and MacOS) coexists with a BBR flow in the network, the BBR flow can dominate the CUBIC flow and get the whole link bandwidth from it (see figure 18 in [9]).