Fwd: [Iccrg] Meeting in Tokyo, with Pfldnet, 20 May

[Lachlan Andrew]

Greetings Bob,

2009/4/8 Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe at jungle.bt.co.uk>:
>
> 1/ Get operators to understand the benefits of moving from policing volume
> to policing congestion-volume, initially by counting congestion locally at
> congested resources (ie without transparency of policing to the end-user,
> which they don't care about now anyway).
>
> 2/ Develop new (1/p) transports with weight (constant of proportionality)
> set low, to be close to equal rate with a competing TCP flow under 'average'
> conditions.
>
> Current volume policing will approximately incentivise these transports not
> to set their weight too high without some special arrangement (eg. paying
> more), merely because they will otherwise transfer lots of volume over time
> and get stopped.

Does that incentive require that the transport know the policing rules
used by the operators?  A particular OS/stack can't evolve in time to
reflect the gradual changes of throttling policy by different
operators.  However, if it could, relying on the punishment would mean
that the current incentive is simply to be as aggressive as possible,
wouldn't it?

I think the current incentive not to be too aggressive is
over-buffered low-speed dedicated access links (e.g. ADSL), where the
user is only competing against its own flows.

Cheers,
Lachlan

-- 
Lachlan Andrew  Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA)
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
<http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew> <http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan>
Ph +61 3 9214 4837