[e2e] Is the end to end paradigm appropriate for congestion control?
jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Mon Nov 11 15:31:18 PST 2013
> From: Detlef Bosau <detlef.bosau at web.de>
> And because we did not want to touch the switches
I think that's a bit excessive - I think we'd have been OK with making some
changes to the switches to produce a viable systemic congestion control
But I do think we would have (rightly IMO) resisted imposition of e.g. a full
hop-by-hop congestion control system (i.e. on path A->B->C->D->E, if E
experiences congestion it tells D, which then tells C, etc).
Remember the times, though: We tried SQ, that 'didn't work' (although I'm
personally still not sure we really understood the fundamental limitations of
direct source congestion notification - I think I've written about this before
here, too lazy to look in the archives to find it); VJCC 'worked', OK, there
are 17 other huge alligators biting at my ankles, time to move on to one of
> (expecting flames...)
Why? I didn't see anything particularly objectionable in your note?
More information about the end2end-interest