[e2e] TCP "experiments"
touch at isi.edu
Sat Jul 27 09:24:47 PDT 2013
On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:48 PM, Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> while linux (pick your flavour) cubic isn't vanilla, neither is
> microsoft's compound tcp - the latter might have seen a bit more
> eval in the literature but the former has seen a lot more big iron
> deployment and doesn't appear to have broken the internet yet
How would we know? They're not instrumented. These are not experiments; they're deployments.
Even Schrödinger's cat eventually sees the light of day (as much as there is a cat in the first place).
> (although there are rumours and reports of corner case problems)
> but i dont think either of these are "non tcp" - they are variants
> on CC behaviour....
Which is a specified standard, which these mechanisms violate.
You do bring up a valid point about the subject line, so I've changed it for this thread going forward.
> also - the ability to do any deployment testing of a new tcp in
> anger _requires you_ to be wireline compatible with TCP because of
> the "non stadard" but ubiquitous NATs and other middleboxes
The environment doesn't support safe experiments, but that is not a valid excuse for unsafe ones.
> so the gold standard you quite reasonably want to hold people to,
> to show their work doesn't do harm in the wild,
> requires them to do "harm" by making
> their new variant TCP appear chameleon like,
> vanilla TCP, so they can get results
So they do harm to avoid doing harm?
They have failed because of their first step.
More information about the end2end-interest