[Iccrg] Heresy recapped

[Lars Eggert]

Hi,

On 2008-4-16, at 13:19, ext Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iccrg-bounces at cs.ucl.ac.uk
>> [mailto:iccrg-bounces at cs.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:04 PM
>>
>> I wouldn't go quite so far and call the current status quo of TCP-
>> friendliness dogmatic; it's mostly what VJ congestion control left us
>> with, and it's sort of a better-than-nothing style of fairness. I do
>> encourage folks to revisit that design choice and discuss
>> whether this
>> type of fairness is what the current and especially future Internet
>> should strive to adhere to, or whether there are alternatives or
>> generalizations that offer more flexibility or "stronger" notions of
>> fairness.
>
> I will just point out that fairness is not a goal of VJ CC; avoiding
> packet loss is.

I didn't say it was a goal, I said some degree of fairness is an  
effect of VJ CC. (If end systems don't cheat.)

Sure, nothing prevents all end systems form all of a sudden turning  
greedy, but the current state we're in - where most end systems do use  
VJ CC for the majority of their traffic - is not completely useless.  
It may not be sufficient going into the future (which is where Matt  
and Bob are coming from, or maybe they're even saying it's not  
sufficient at present), but the state we're currently in is not  
complete anarchy.

> The inputs to VJ CC are "some bytes were not lost" (an ACK) and "some
> bytes were probably lost" (an RTO or 3-dupack).  They are not "someone
> is sending faster than me" or "I'm sending faster than someone else",
> or any other metric or inference useful for acheiving any form of
> fairness, because that is not its goal.

Lars