[ih] why did CC happen at all?

[Detlef Bosau]

Am 01.09.2014 um 23:53 schrieb Louis Mamakos:
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Detlef Bosau <detlef.bosau at web.de> wrote:
>
>> As you mention INTSERV: To the best of my knowlege, INTSERV was, at
>> least, not generally deployed in the whole Internet ;-)
> Yes, exactly.  You might consider why that is the case.
>

I already mentioned a reason. The Internet is a "best effort network".
And I point to an argument given by Vint (IIRC?): We wanted an
alternative to line switching. (The COMCAR project, I worked at years
ago was intentionally a multimedia project and so I happened to read
quite some of these nonsense PhD theses which pretended to provide
something new - and actually reinvented line switching by the means of
abused packet switching. The 90s were full of "me too projects" in that
manner.)

A second reason is, and COMCAR should deal with wireless networks is,
that QoS "reservations" are, in the general case, not possible for
wireless networks.
(So our partner from industry told me not to reserve but to adapt. Being
so fond of this nonsense that he was about to hop around and dance around.)

Some people blame me for writing that often about an extremely deep
frustration here. But when I feel abused for telling lies within the
system and I notice, that I'm cheated, I say so. There ARE people who
believe scientific results. And when scientists start telling lies -
they should stand to this and stop pretend they were doing "science".

There are certainly other reasons that INTSERV was not adopted, e.g.
scalability.

When I may add a sentence about COMCAR. MY lesson learned from this
project is, that CS guys only have a hammer, so everything looks like a
nail,
Or, with respect to networks, they only have packet switching. Anything
else is evil. COMCAR attempted multimeda streaming - over packet switcht
networks.
When you solve the wrong problems using the wrong approaches and the
wrong toolks, you will inevitably faill.

(These days, I had to think about this funny "UDP light" with checksums
only referring to the headers, not to the payloads. Dear readers, there
is exactly NOT EVEN ONE wireless PACKET SWITCHING network without link
layer checksums, hence, a packet with bit errors is discarded at L2, not
at L4. So, when one introduces UDP light, the sad truth is: This dead is
died long ago before a packet ever reaches the receiver's access point
for "UDP".)

Feel free to call me the most arrogant a** in the world. But you cannot
call me a liar.

The by far most important priniple in science is fidelity and
intellectual honesty.

Semper fidellis; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzeqTyO5Mbs





-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Detlef Bosau
Galileistraße 30   
70565 Stuttgart                            Tel.:   +49 711 5208031
                                           mobile: +49 172 6819937
                                           skype:     detlef.bosau
                                           ICQ:          566129673
detlef.bosau at web.de                     http://www.detlef-bosau.de