[Iccrg] Re: Heresy in Minneapolis

[Lisong Xu]

Bob,

Thank for writing such an interesting and important draft!

After reading it (quickly), it seems to me that the draft focuses on the 
fairness between different users. I agree that the fairness between 
different users is important. But I believe that TCP friendliness is 
proposed not only for the fairness between different users, but also for 
the fairness between different applications.

So my question is while "volume accounting" helps on the fairness 
between different users (e.g. single connection vs multiple connections, 
active vs non-active), will it also help on the fairness between 
different applications (e.g. FTP vs VoIP, BitTorrent vs Joost)?

By the way, we are also working on how to relax the traditional 
definition of TCP-friendliness. Currently, we are focusing on the impact 
of UDP-based applications on TCP-based applications. You can find more 
information here http://csce.unl.edu/~xu/research/stochasticTCP.html.

Thanks!
Lisong

-- 
Lisong Xu, Assistant Professor
Computer Science & Engineering
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
http://cse.unl.edu/~xu

Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Matt & I have been having a side conversation about this.
> 
> In summary, we agree on what we don't want, but there's less consensus 
> on the path ahead.
> 
> I'd like to suggest that those interested in what the IETF needs to do 
> about relaxing TCP-friendliness make sure they're around in ICCRG. I've 
> bcc'd a few folks who I suspect will be interested but might not 
> naturally look in on ICCRG.
> 
> I haven't put this to the r-g chairs, but I imagine a discussion will 
> start in response to Matt's talk, and might need some time to adjorn to 
> a bar afterwards (there's one more session before the end of the day 
> afterwards tho). Perhaps we'll get together a truly ad hoc Bar BoF :)
> 
> I know Matt is also talking on this in TSVWG & TSVAREA, but I imagine 
> ICCRG ought to be where any initial activity migrates to (& I think Matt 
> agrees).
> 
> My interest is that I believe TCP friendliness has become a self-imposed 
> barrier to innovation. What's the point of having the e2e principle if 
> you stop yourself and everyone else using the freedom it gives on some 
> dodgy grounds you can't really justify?
> 
> See "Problem Statement: Transport Protocols Don't Have To Do Fairness "
> <draft-briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness-01.txt>
> 
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> At 03:23 16/04/2008, Matt Mathis wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, S. Keshav 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?
>>
>> I would tend to agree.  However, isn't this list supposed to represent 
>> academia?
>>
>>> Its already a done deal.
>>
>> Not in TCPM, TSVWG, etc, where dogmatic attachment to TCP-friendly is 
>> probably hurting the IETF.  This is where we need to change minds and 
>> some deeply entrenched documents.
>>
>> I think the ADs are probably listening - do they have any commemts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iccrg mailing list
>> Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
>> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________ 
> 
> Bob Briscoe, <bob.briscoe at bt.com>      Networks Research Centre, BT 
> Research
> B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK.    +44 1473 
> 645196
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iccrg mailing list
> Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg
>