[e2e] Why do we need congestion control?

Daniel Havey 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.
> +1
> > Samples like this one, which are trivial to obtain, are
> the
> > reason for congestion control in TCP and for AQM in the
> network.
> +1
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
> otherwise.)
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?

> d/
> --  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list