[ih] Why did congestion happen at all? Re: why did CC happen at all?

[Detlef Bosau]

Am 31.08.2014 um 20:46 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
>> >/  There are dozens of all days life examples where resources must be
>> />/  allocated or assigned, we have well proven algorithms for these
>> />/  purposes. E.g. in Germany, you can travel by car from Flensburg to
>> />/  Füssen. And there is no need for probing, no need for dropped
>> cars and
>> />/  car corruption is considered an accident./
>
> is simply bogus.  You DON'T "have well proven algorithms for  these
> purposes."

Neither is congestion control for the internet "proven".

>
> No.  It didn't.  As several of us who were there, have told you. The
> documentation is also pretty easy to find - try googling "BBN Report
> 1822," "imp-to-imp protocol", and, "ARPANET 1822L" for starters.

Then documentation work like this one here
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/chris/think/ARPANET/Technical_Tour/sidi_flow.shtml
is wrong.

However, honestly, I'm a bit frustrated and a bit tired.


Both, "bandwidth" and "flow control" have a propper, well defined
technical meaning, in both cases this was forged by our CS rabulistic.

And more than once, I saw arguments replaced by loudness - and you might
believe it or not; I personally prefer the very decent tone, I want to
conduct scientific research - and we are neither at Sotheby's nor at a
"Tupperware Party".

As you see in the quoted pages (and I had a look at some of the protocol
standards, I would not write on this one if I had not reflected those
matters during the past ten years) the ARPAnet had a flow control mechanism.

And the only reason why we dropped flow control in RFC 791 (as you see,
I prefer rationales over yelling) was the possibility of head of line
blocking, when we do flow control per line. As you see on
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/chris/think/ARPANET/Technical_Tour/sidi_flow.shtml
the ARPANET provided per flow wise flow control for up to 8 flows.

Do you agree here?

So, actually, there WAS a flow wise flow control - and hence one could
overcome head of line blocking problems.

So there actually WAS the possibilty for a
- per flow
- per hop
flow control.

And now I would really appreciate compelling reasons why this was abandoned!

(As you might notice, I'm reviewing the related work for my own research
here. Did you?)

And when I sound harsh here: Personally, I'm a very decent person. Even
the tone in some universities is much too harsh for me, there are always
some few "loudspeakers" you shout and yell there insights everywhere and
shout down any question.

When I ask questions here, I do this because I did not find compelling
answers in more than ten years OF EXTREMELY HARD WORK.

This particularly includes not only to attend lessons given by some
narcissistic professors but reading many of the original papers
(including those by VJ, Little, Shannon) carefully, line by line and
several times.

And yes, I repeat my statement: You can travel by car from Flensburg to
Füssen, WITHOUT probing and WITHOUT congestion loss, and obviously
without evem a university education.

So there must be something in our networking world, which is different
from that real world, and therefore, I ask questions.