"Does TCP Need an Overhaul?" (internetevolution, via slashdot)

Mike Gonnason gonnason at gmail.com
Wed Apr 9 12:47:36 UTC 2008

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Greg Skinner <gds at gds.best.vwh.net> wrote:
>  On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 01:10:53AM +0200, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>  > The problem is that fairness was probably never a design goal of TCP,
>  > even with Van Jacobson's congestion avoidance patch.
>  >
>  > Bob Briscoe is a member of the IETF Transport Working Group (TSVWG).
>  > This subject got some publicity and politics involved, but please see
>  > some real discussion on the TSVWG list, with my favorite answer highlighted:
>  This issue also got some publicity and politics on the IRTF end2end list.
>  For example, start at http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2007-August/006925.html .
>  --gregbo

Thank you both (Marcin and Greg)  for the links, they have made for
some great reading tonight. It would appear that I have introduced a
slight tangent from the goal of this topic. The main discussion here
was regarding an overhaul of TCP, whereas my Briscoe suggestion is
more of an architectural overhaul which leads to many other changes
(infrastructural, economical and protocol) in the network.

Briscoe's somewhat undiplomatic introduction of his idea seems to have
elicited an initially negative response, however I happy to see that
others have seen his ideas to have merit and hence test his reasoning.
I surmise that the big question now is, do we go with a small step
(enhanced congestion detection) or a jump (total reworking of network
policing architecture).

I am glad to say that whatever is decided, it will most likely be
implemented far faster than IPv6. As we will not have a specific
feature to buy us time from congestion, unlike what NAT did for IPv4.

-Mike Gonnason

More information about the NANOG mailing list