<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>what do you mean by "different level of
congestion"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>sm<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 11/6/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>Sally
Floyd</B> <sallyfloyd@mac.com> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">>
- The rise time of a single flow to an empty systems is not very<BR>>
interesting, because it many measures the impact of slow
start.<BR><BR>Actually, the flow completion time in an uncongested system can
be<BR>a quite interesting thing to measure, particularly if one
is<BR>evaluating one of the many proposals for start-ups faster
than<BR>slow-start. (One of these proposals is Quick-Start, RFC
4782; some<BR>of the others are discussed in Appendix A of RFC 4782.)<BR><BR>I
would recommend having scenarios include the case of
a<BR>generally-uncongested link, as well as including cases with
various<BR>levels of congestion, with metrics including per-flow
transfer<BR>times, fairness, and aggregate packet drop rates. This
should<BR>illustrate some of the good and potentially-bad aspects of
protocols<BR>with fast start-ups.<BR><BR>-
Sally<BR>http://www.icir.org/floyd/<BR><BR>RFC
4782: http://www.ietf.org/rfc<WBR>/rfc4782.txt<BR><BR>______________________________<WBR>_________________<BR>Tmrg-interest
mailing
list<BR>Tmrg-interest@ICSI.Berkeley<WBR>.EDU<BR>http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley<WBR>.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg<WBR>-interest<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR clear=all></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>