[ih] Global congestion collapse

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Ted Faber wrote:
| On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 07:11:26AM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
|
|>
|>Craig Partridge wrote:
|>...
|>
|>>>Either way, though, it was pretty shortly thereafter that I remember
|>>>getting my first replacement .o files with yummy new TCP congestion
|>>>control algorithms in them.
|>>
|>>That would have been Van's TCP mods (described in the SIGCOMM '88 paper).
|>>It was astonishing how big a difference they made.
|>
|>Not to downplay the utility of Van's variant, but it seems like _any_
|>congestion control would have (or may have - e.g. Dave's mods) made an
|>astonishing impact.
|
|
| There's a fundamental difference between an e2e control like Van's and a
| queueing system like Dave's.  One reduces load and one reallocates
| scarce resources to the more deserving.  While sophisticated queueing is
| undeniably helpful, the end-to-end control a necessity.

Why? Granted it's useful, granted that it avoids needing to deploy
Dave's stuff throughout (which is otherwise required) - but if that were
done, why is E2E control a "necessity"?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBwHpsE5f5cImnZrsRAiJYAKDMUkEQpprAno4qEowvqeD7gf4g9ACfSc8b
aVL6YnjUweZNFS8Anf0kDR8=
=eOFM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----