[Iccrg] Meeting agenda

[Michael Welzl]

On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 16:34, John Leslie wrote:
> Michael Welzl <michael.welzl at uibk.ac.at> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 19:38, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> >> 
> >> 1) congestion control when striping data over multiple paths.  Issues
> >>    here involve mechanisms for detecting the degree of independence between
> >>    paths, and identifying shared-congestion on the common portions of
> >>    multiple paths.  These have come up in the IETF in the context of SCTP.
> >>    After shared congestion is identified, what is the proper response?
> 
>    There is a "correct" thing to do; but I don't claim it's practical:
> have the two routers surrounding the split maintain it as a single virtual
> path, with a single congestion behavior.

If it's SCTP, I think that the question on the table is the
correct reaction in the transport end system (where we can't
assume that routers do what you suggest).

In this case, I think that SCTP should treat each path
just like TCP would (if you would use one TCP connections
per path).

What would be the reason to do anything else?


Despite the fact that multiple TCP connections are more
aggressive and a single one, congestion control is really
a per-path function and should be treated as such (i.e.
for TCP, in an ideal world, the congestion manager should
be used   :)   ).


>    Anything less than this will tend to break the model on which congestion
> control is built. :^(

Why?

Cheers,
Michael