North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
At 7:40 PM -0700 9/3/07, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >John Curran wrote: >> At 9:21 PM -0400 9/3/07, Joe Abley wrote: >>> Is there a groundswell of *operators* who think TCP should be replaced, and believe it can be replaced? >> >> Just imagine *that* switchover, with the same level of >> transition planning as we received with IPv6... >> ;-) > >The congestion control mechanism can be replaced independent of the >transport. In point of fact linux systems have been using bic-tcp by >default since 2004 and nobody noticed... Backwards compatibility is "a good thing" (and what was not a achieved in the IPv6 case despite repeated claims to the contrary...) /John p.s. bic-tcp (and cubic) certainly have been noticed... "We first examined the scenario in which a long-lived Standard TCP and a high-speed transport protocol flow coexist. We observed the well- known unfairness problem: that is, a highspeed transport protocol flow starved the long-lived Standard TCP flow for bandwidth, ..." (K. Kumazoe, K. Kouyama, Y. Hori, M. Tsuru, Y. Oie, "Can highspeed transport protocols be deployed on the Internet? : Evaluation through experiments on JGNII", PFLDnet 2006, Nara, Japan.) We really don't know how well windows hosts (or Vista hosts with CTCP) actually perform on a shared network of bic-tcp systems.