[Iccrg] A review of the CUBIC draft
lachlan.andrew at gmail.com
Mon May 26 18:59:45 BST 2008
Thanks for the review.
2008/5/26 Kashif Munir <kashif.munir at uibk.ac.at>:
> The CUBIC protocol can be considered safe for
> deployment as it does not perform worse than TCP in difficult environments
> like wireless networks.
My understanding was that being "safe" is normally about the
algorithm's impact on *competing* flows, rather than its own
performance. Could you please comment on how well other flows fare in
difficult (and typical) environments when CUBIC is used?
> the explanation must be clear
> and consistent throughout the document. It must be clearly specified that
> the CUBIC flows are only RTT-fair when they have same RTT
What does RTT fairness mean if all RTTs are equal?
> and by taking some
> time for convergence to fair share otherwise the CUBIC flows have their
> bandwidth shares linearly proportional to the inverse of their RTT ratio.
Good. That is more RTT fair than Reno.
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
More information about the Iccrg