[Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck"

[Lachlan Andrew]

Thanks for starting this thread, Matt.

FWIW, I tend to agree with Bob that locking "bandwidth fairness" into
the network is
(a) not necessarily the sort of fairness that applications need
and
(b) hard to reverse when we finally do see what applications need.

I agree that "TCP-friendliness" is overrated, but would be pushing the
Kelly/Briscoe line of charging users for the congestion they cause,
rather than arbitrarily limiting them to equality of a metric most
users don't care about (instantaneous bandwidth).

It may be sensible WFQ is used as an interim solution until we can get
the network-wide agreement necessary for charging.  However, if we
agree that charging is a better eventual solution, we should be
careful not to lock in design decisions which will make it harder
eventually.

$0.02,
Lachlan

On 04/04/2008, Dirceu Cavendish <dirceu_cavendish at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Zeroing into the bandwidth metric, a per flow queueing would give routers
> the power to share their link capacities however they find fit - WFQ,
> max-min fairness, etc - independent of other factors, such as sessions RTTs.
> In this scenario, and aggressive congestion control would cause its own
> traffic to be spilled, so "isolation" of sessions would be achieved.


-- 
Lachlan Andrew  Dept of Computer Science, Caltech
1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA
Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820    Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603
http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan