[e2e] TCP "experiments"

John Day jeanjour at comcast.net
Sat Jul 27 20:18:05 PDT 2013

I believe what you are pointing out is known as "the horse is already 
out of the barn."  ;-)

Take care,

At 7:20 PM -0700 7/27/13, Matt Mathis wrote:
>The real issue is the diversity of implementations in the Internet 
>that allege to be standard IP and TCP NAT, but contain undocumented 
>"features".  No level of simulation has any hope of predicting how 
>well a new protocol feature or congestion control algorithm will 
>actually function in the real Internet - you have to measure it.
>Furthermore: given that Google gets most of its revenue from clicks, 
>how much might it cost us to "deploy" a protocol feature that caused 
>0.01% failure rate?  If you were Google management, how large of 
>sample size would you want to have before you might be willing 
>actually deploy something globally?
>The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
>Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using 
>our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat 
>privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some 
>users, they are.
>On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Lachlan Andrew 
><<mailto:lachlan.andrew at gmail.com>lachlan.andrew at gmail.com> wrote:
>Greetings John,
>On 28 July 2013 04:36, John Day 
><<mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>>  One never does experiments with a production network.
>  > An arbitrary network of several hundred nodes
>>  or even a few thousand is not that big a deal.
>Greetings John,
>You are absolutely right that testbed experiments should be performed
>before "live" experiments.  However, it is not so much the size of the
>network as the mix of applications running on it that makes the test
>representative.  It is still very difficult to perform a test with a
>few thousand human users all doing their thing.  That means that live
>experiments still have a place.
>Of course, that doesn't excuse un-monitored deployments as occurred
>when Linux started using BIC as the default.  To my mind, the solution
>would be for the IETF to provide more practical guidance on how to
>perform limited-scale, monitored tests on the real Internet.  The
>process of getting a protocol "approved", even as an experimental RFC,
>is far too cumbersome for most researchers, especially since there is
>no way to police the use of non-approved protocols.  The IETF will be
>most relevant if its processes reflect its power.  We (or at least I)
>want the Internet to be inherited by those who try to play by the
>rules rather than those who flaunt them, but the if the only way to
>make timely progress is by breaking the rules then we won't achieve
>that (as we saw with CUBIC and NATs).  Getting the balance right is
>difficult, but important.
>Lachlan Andrew  Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA)
>Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
>Ph <tel:%2B61%203%209214%204837>+61 3 9214 4837

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list