Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
Steven M. Bellovin
smb at cs.columbia.edu
Tue Sep 4 01:44:39 UTC 2007
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:21:26 -0400
Joe Abley <jabley at ca.afilias.info> wrote:
> On 3-Sep-2007, at 1328, nanditad at stanford.edu wrote:
> > Spurred on by a widespread belief that TCP is showing its age and >
> > needs replacing
> I don't mean to hijack this thread unnecessarily, but this seems like
> an interesting disconnect between ops people and research people
> (either that or I'm just showing my ignorance, which will be nothing
> Is there a groundswell of *operators* who think TCP should be
> replaced, and believe it can be replaced?
> Or is the motivation for replacing TCP mainly felt by those who spend
> a lot of time trying to get maximum performance out of single flows
> over high bandwidth-delay product paths?
Operators speak IP, not TCP -- not your problem...
More seriously -- the question is whether new services will cause
operator congestion problems that today's mechanisms don't handle.
It's also possible, per the note that some solutions will have operator
implications, such as new tuning knobs for routers and/or new funky new
DNS records to make it clear which hosts support TCP++. Beyond that,
there are likely implications for things like firewalls, ACLs, and
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
More information about the NANOG