[e2e] TCP Loss Differentiation
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Sat Feb 21 07:27:25 PST 2009
Sergey - I understand the motivation and approach. The problem today is
that few applications are deployed that would exercise that freedom.
There is not strong (in the sense of importance to users) tradeoff
between throughput and micro/per-packet delays today in the Internet.
Most of the Internet gives aggregate throughput that is better than 1/2
the potential throughput, and if the improvement is less than a factor
of 2 for big FTPs, it's not really that important except to tweakers.
Sergey Gorinsky wrote:
> Dear David and Fred,
> A small buffer offers small delay to delay-sensitive traffic.
> Throughput-greedy traffic is served through another, bigger buffer
> at a higher per-flow rate. The two-buffer forwarding gives
> the senders complete freedom in choosing between
> the two best-effort services of larger throughput versus
> low queuing delay:
> "RD Network Services: Differentiation through Performance Incentives"
> by Maxim Podlesny and Sergey Gorinsky,
> Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2008, pp. 255-266, August 2008,
> The architecture is an attempt at throughput-delay differentiation
> designed explicitly for incremental deployment in the multi-provider
> Thank you,
>> On 20 Feb 2009, at 18:10, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:55 PM, David P. Reed wrote:
>>>> Fred, you are right. Let's get ECN done. Get your company to take
>>>> the lead.
>>> ECN has been in the field, in some products, for the better part of
>>> a decade. Next step; get ISPs to turn it on. The products that don't
>>> support it don't because our customers tell us they don't need it
>>> (nobody is paying them to turn it on) or are simply not asking for it.
More information about the end2end-interest