[e2e] Why do we need TCP flow control (rwnd)?
day at std.com
Tue Jul 1 10:54:51 PDT 2008
No kidding. There are some textbook authors who have helped with this
too. I was shocked to see Stallings say in one of his books,
something to the effect of 'In the early 90s we discovered network
traffic wasn't Poisson.' (!) We had known *that* since the 70s!!!
I remember prior to 1976 scouring the literature looking for work
that was closer to real, i.e. didn't assume Poisson, or would give us
the tools to get closer to real.
I also think that there has been a lot of sloppy teaching out there.
Or maybe it is sloppy learning. The attitude of 'just tell me what I
need to know to get through this course.' Well, you need to know the
Makes you wonder what other misconceptions people are operating under.
At 9:26 -0400 2008/07/01, David P. Reed wrote:
>Michael Scharf wrote:
>>BTW: I wonder how all those TCP simulators out there address this
>Trivial arrival models: e.g. the wondrous Poisson model, with all
>its huge flaws of assuming that the sender will keep banging away
>despite getting no app-layer results.
>This is awful: most predictions of "congestion collapse" (though not
>all) were created by mindlessly presuming Poisson arrival. No human
>that I know of *ever* generates a Poisson distribution. We use
>them on student problem sets because they are analytically easy, not
>because they are realistic in any way. Then a whole generation of
>theory students grow up thinking that network traffic is best
>thought of as Poisson. And they dominate the conversation, blasting
>out any more thoughtful approaches by generating minimum publishable
>units and reviewing each others' papers as if they were problem sets
>to be graded.
More information about the end2end-interest