<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.5">
<TITLE>RE: [e2e] FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Injong,<BR>
<BR>
>In fact, i contacted your student "Baruch" one month and half before we posted our<BR>
report -- it was CCed in the netdev mailing list as well and we gave him login and<BR>
passwd on our result website (at that time we were just about to write the report)<BR>
and we have not heard from your guys until just one week ago. At least we did try to<BR>
make sure we are running a buggy version.<BR>
<BR>
We have no record of receiving such an email. Just a mix-up I guess.<BR>
<BR>
Doug<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>>Seriously, we can't run the tests for every fix and bug report.<BR>
><BR>
> Perhaps best to view it as returning a favour. You may recall that we<BR>
> re-ran all our own experimental tests last year (all data and code<BR>
> available online at www.hamilton.ie/net/eval/) on discovering a previously<BR>
> unreported bug introduced by the linux folks when implementing bic.<BR>
> Something similar has happened with importing htcp into linux.<BR>
><BR>
> Seriously, where's the value in comparing buggy implementations - isn't<BR>
> that just a waste of all our time ? If we are genuine about wanting to<BR>
> understand tcp performance then I think we just have to take the hit from<BR>
> issues such as this that are outside all of our control.<BR>
><BR>
> Doug<BR>
><BR>
> Hamilton Institute<BR>
> www.hamilton.ie<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>