Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call forDemos
kuhtzch at corp.earthlink.net
Tue Sep 4 14:55:33 UTC 2007
And given that it is travelling between users who may or may not have trust established between them and intermediate systems which may or may not have trust established with each other or the endpoints, we got ourselves a bit of a pickle here. And trust is far bigger than trust in a security sense (where the only presently massively adopted working model is end-to-end with any intermediate systems being completely oblivious -- unless markings for example are exposed on the wrapper..)
Sensible it is only within a single administrative control domain, as cross domain isn't just a technical but a business challenge (economic and political).
What would an evo of TCP solve over, say, DCCP? Or just using straight unadulterated UDP?
Without meaning to offend anyone, sure does smell a bit like Ph.D. thesis generator mode to me.
Sent from my BlackBerry.
From: Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:09:52
To:Stephen Stuart <stuart at tech.org>
Cc:Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com>, nanog <nanog at merit.edu>
Subject: Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > >
> > > Operators are probably more interested in the "fairness" part of
> > > "congestion" than the "efficiency" part of "congestion."
> > TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not
> > per-flow?
> How would you define "user" in that context?
Given that we're trusting the user's OS to implement congestion control,
it seems reasonable to trust it to define per-user in a sensible way.
f.a.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING NORTHEASTERLY FOR A TIME, 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR
MODERATE. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
More information about the NANOG