[e2e] Question the other way round:

[Detlef Bosau]

Am 20.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Joe Touch:
>> I read the reference to packets as an example.
>
> Me too.
>
> But circuits don't have a collapse or oversubscription. They simply
> reject calls that aren't compatible with available capacity.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with the definition; I'm disagreeing with the
> assumption that having a network implies congestion and thus the need
> for congestion control.

And I'm agreeing with you here. I'm convinced that a proper resource
management could simply spare us the whole (as you rightly say:
reactive) congestion control.

>
> There are a variety of mechanisms that avoid congestion, typically by
> a-priori reservation (circuits), or by limiting resource use
> implicitly (e.g., ischemic control). These are a kind of proactive
> control that avoid congestion in the first place.
>
> That's not to say whether these mechanisms are scalable or efficient
> compared to the resource sharing afforded by packet multiplexing.
>

However, it is worthwhile considering these approaches.

In a sense, VJCC (and derivatives) is a kludge to work around the
missing resource management in TCP in RFC 793.

Resource management does not necessarily mean "resource reservation" or
"admission control"  - but in best effort networks it should
provide for resource sharing / distribution and proper scheduling.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Detlef Bosau
Galileistraße 30   
70565 Stuttgart                            Tel.:   +49 711 5208031
                                           mobile: +49 172 6819937
                                           skype:     detlef.bosau
                                           ICQ:          566129673
detlef.bosau at web.de                     http://www.detlef-bosau.de