Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

John Curran jcurran at
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 mailing list