[e2e] Why do we need congestion control?
dhavey at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 10 13:06:30 PDT 2013
--- On Wed, 4/10/13, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> Subject: Re: [e2e] Why do we need congestion control?
> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred at cisco.com>
> Cc: "<end2end-interest at postel.org>" <end2end-interest at postel.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013, 11:02 AM
> On 4/10/2013 7:48 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> > I find this whole discussion a little amazing.
> > Samples like this one, which are trivial to obtain, are
> > reason for congestion control in TCP and for AQM in the
These are the best kind of samples. If they are trivial then it will be easier to obtain many of them for statistical significance.
> Your note nicely and simply points out pragmatics that
> persist in the modern Internet. None of what you've
> written is new or unusual (and no, you didn't pretend
Pragmatics? To the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters...Hmmm, probably not gonna get my PhD that way. Yeah, we will probably ignore the artistic stuff...
> In the face of this, what I don't understand is why this
> thread has gone on for so long. Surely it should be
> allowed to die, given that the core -- possibly reasonable
> -- concern was long-ago answered.
So I don't understand this. The so called "bufferbloat" problem is solved in the core? But pragmatically speaking it still exists? This wont get me a PhD, but, one has to ask, why? Does the core drop segments? Or does it buffer them?
> -- Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
More information about the end2end-interest