Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
jcurran at mail.com
Tue Sep 4 03:21:38 UTC 2007
At 7:40 PM -0700 9/3/07, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>John Curran wrote:
>> At 9:21 PM -0400 9/3/07, Joe Abley wrote:
>>> Is there a groundswell of *operators* who think TCP should be replaced, and believe it can be replaced?
>> Just imagine *that* switchover, with the same level of
>> transition planning as we received with IPv6...
>The congestion control mechanism can be replaced independent of the
>transport. In point of fact linux systems have been using bic-tcp by
>default since 2004 and nobody noticed...
Backwards compatibility is "a good thing" (and what was not a
achieved in the IPv6 case despite repeated claims to the contrary...)
p.s. bic-tcp (and cubic) certainly have been noticed... "We first
examined the scenario in which a long-lived Standard TCP and a
high-speed transport protocol flow coexist. We observed the well-
known unfairness problem: that is, a highspeed transport protocol
flow starved the long-lived Standard TCP flow for bandwidth, ..."
(K. Kumazoe, K. Kouyama, Y. Hori, M. Tsuru, Y. Oie, "Can highspeed
transport protocols be deployed on the Internet? : Evaluation
through experiments on JGNII", PFLDnet 2006, Nara, Japan.)
We really don't know how well windows hosts (or Vista hosts with
CTCP) actually perform on a shared network of bic-tcp systems.
More information about the NANOG