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

Paul Francis francis at cs.cornell.edu
Tue Sep 26 06:50:04 PDT 2006

What I said was, that Fastsoft's deployment model (that of putting an
appliance at the edge of the network) is simple and popular (i.e. many
products deploy that way).

Look, the original question on the table is simply whether it makes sense for
a researcher to compare his transport protocol with FastTCP.  I know how I
answer that question for myself, which is, yes, it makes sense.  Not only
because it is a good technology (AFAIK), but also because it is a commercial
product.  It is very nice if a research result can beat a commercial product.
Of course good to compare with other transports as well.

If as a researcher you don't think it makes sense to compare your transport
with FastTCP, well fine then.



-----Original Message-----
From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:00 AM
To: Paul Francis
Cc: l.andrew at ieee.org; doug.leith at nuim.ie; end2end-interest at postel.org
Subject: Re: [e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc

At Saturday 23/09/2006 09:15 -0400, Paul Francis wrote:
>Seriously though...
>There is another way to view the question of whether fasttcp is out of 
>the running or not.  Which is, if FastTCP is commercialized (and by the 
>way the Fastsoft deployment model is a simple and popular one)

really? If it's so popular, which OS vendors have adopted FastTCP(TM)?

(Microsoft developed its own Compound TCP. Linux is going with CUBIC
variants. These avoid IPR restrictions and licenses.)


>, then it seems that FastTCP is exactly the protocol that you want to 
>be benchmarking against alternatives.
>From: L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk [mailto:L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk]
>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:33 AM
>To: Paul Francis; l.andrew at ieee.org
>Cc: doug.leith at nuim.ie; end2end-interest at postel.org
>Subject: RE: [e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc
>Paul Francis said on Fri 2006-09-22 23:23:
> > 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.
>While the Caltech IPR on Fast TCP tells us not to look at Fast TCP 
>because of the deployment cost.
>Note that the correct name of the protocol is FastTCP(TM) -- and that 
>in FastSoft's preferred deployment model, you'd have to deploy their 
>PEPs in front of every LAN... not so different from XCP.
>FastTCP has been out of the running for deployment ever since it was 
>first announced -- with the Caltech IPR shackles mentioned in the slideset.

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list