[Iccrg] Re: Timely reaction time (Re: [R-C] Comments on
michawe at ifi.uio.no
Fri Mar 30 11:17:33 BST 2012
On Mar 30, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 01:55 PM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>>> Section 4: par 3, "This algorithm is run every time a receive
>>> report arrives..." => so in case of severe congestion, when
>>> nothing else arrives, this algorithm waits for 2 *
>>> t_max_fb_interval... so can we rely on the mechanism to react to
>>> this congestion after roughly an RTO or not? (sounds like not) Is
>>> that bad? (I guess)
>>> There is a need for some emergency break mechanism if no feedback
>>> gets through.
>> I totally agree - what I meant is, it isn't clear to me if that
>> emergency break is activated in time or too late. It should be in
>> time (i.e. after roughly an RTO).
> This seems to be a subject that should be discussed in the context
> of the circuit-breakers draft: What kind of response time is
> appropriate for such a mechanism, and why?
I think not: we're talking about two kinds of situations here. The
context here is: there was congestion, we should react to it within an
RTO (and have an "emergency break" to always do that - but maybe that
term was misleading). The circuit-breakers draft is about a much more
serious condition (such as persistent congestion), warranting a much
more serious reaction (terminating the connection).
More information about the Iccrg