[Iccrg] Heresy recapped

[Lachlan Andrew]

Keshav,

Perhaps Matt meant that we need to consider how we can get the IETF to
agree to standardise Reno-unfriendly mechanisms, rather than
continuing the current defacto free-for-all that you describe.

We might not need to phase TCP-friendliness out of the Internet, but
we may need to phase it out of the IETF expectations.  (FWIW, I don't
see the IETF as academia, even though there is overlap.)

Cheers,
Lachlan

On 15/04/2008, S. Keshav <keshav at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Matt,
>         The paradigm holds sway only in the minds of academia. I think
> (based almost purely on cynicism), that in the real world TCP friendliness
> never had a chance. There is a long history of TCP accelerators,
> multi-connection applications, UDP-blasters, packet
> classifiers-and-delayers, and who knows what else that have never cared
> about it. So, why do we need to phase it out? Its already a done deal.
>
>  regards
>  keshav
>
>  On Apr 14, 2008, at 12:16 AM, Matt Mathis wrote:
>
> > I would like to nudge the iccrg to go on to the next step:  What do we
> need to do to phase out the TCP-friendly paradigm?
> >
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Iccrg mailing list
>  Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
>  http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg
>


-- 
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