[e2e] TCP in outer space
hussein at ee.washington.edu
Sat Apr 14 21:50:20 PDT 2001
If I may dare point out without the risk of being personally
attacked because of disagreeing with an Internet Ego somewhere on this
list (not that I care, or even should), and hence being considered
ignorant, traitor or anything of the like (which seems to be happening quite
easily on this list as of late), the statement below
(not the "clever design" phrase, but the "fair share" claim) is not correct.
Using the same loose language, it is well known that there are many techniques that
"people" can use to get more than their "fair share" [of a link capacity]
(e.g. multiple concurrent TCP flows, non-responsive flows, large initial
windows, etc.). I don't think fairness is an objective of the traditional
Internet design -and I'm not implying that it has to be included either.
It's good to appreciate *both* the capabilities *and*
limitations (if I may dare say) of the current Internet
architecture. It's good to remeber the *informed* design decisions that
have been made, as well as the *not so sound* ones (cause at that time
no one new better, or there was no advanced enough technology, or
whatever). It's not good research practice to oversell it [in my
My 2 piasters.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> The Internet's congestion control mechanisms actually work pretty well, thank
> you - in part because of clever design which informs the characteristic that
> if people try and get more than their "fair share", they almost always
> actually get less.
> Particularly when it's clear, as above, that the person making the statements
> has a very poor understanding of what has been done, and why.
More information about the end2end-interest