[e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc

Paul Francis francis at cs.cornell.edu
Fri Sep 22 15:23:13 PDT 2006

Sure, but nevertheless it is interesting to compare them.  I mean, what if we
find out that fasttcp is just or nearly just as good as XCP.  This tells us
not to even bother looking at XCP cause of the deployment cost.  If on the
other hand explicit signaling approaches are generally way better, then one
can think about environments where one might deploy them (i.e. VPN

Fred's point that one *can't* measure XCP over the internet is certainly a
good one.....


-----Original Message-----
From: Lachlan Andrew [mailto:lachlan.andrew at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:26 PM
To: Paul Francis
Cc: Douglas Leith; end2end-interest at postel.org
Subject: Re: [e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc

Greetings Paul,

I can't speak for the Hamilton team, but I think the reason is that, like
MaxNet, RCP, JetMax and a host of other proposals, XCP uses explicit
signalling from the routers.

They can't be fairly compared with sender-side-only solutions like the
others, because they uses extra information they don't have, and thay can't
be generally implemented until enough routers on the internet are upgraded to
give that information.


On 22/09/06, Paul Francis <francis at cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
> Any reason XCP not included in this?
> PF

Lachlan Andrew  Dept of Computer Science, Caltech 1200 E California Blvd,
Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA
Phone: +1 (626) 395-8820    Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list