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

[Lachlan Andrew]

Greetings Bob,

On 08/04/2008, Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe at jungle.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>  Just to be clear - we're not proposing charging for congestion like Kelly.
>  It's an important difference. Like the difference between volume charging
> and volume capping.

I didn't mean to misrepresent you, but to me, that's an IETF-level
"implementation detail", rather than an IRTF-level issue.  To be
maximally useful, it should be something which affects the
users'/applications' behaviour to avoid peak times.

The key is that the quantity you are both sharing out (however you do
it) is  *congestion*  rather than rate or volume.

>  Finally, I don't think 'we' have to use WFQ as an interim solution -
> fortunately 'we' don't make that choice - operators have protected a better
> form of fairness than TCP's on the Internet with WFQ for many years.

OK, but "we" have the choice of letting loose algorithms which will
increase pressure to deploy it where it isn't already enabled, don't
we?

Cheers,
Lachlan

-- 
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