Re: Congestion control as a hot topic in IETF

Scott Brim <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.network.end2end
Message-ID <CAPv4CP-xfuq+KJX5LhwGFisu-NA752TmLqZryk_MWLg1S2o7sg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Detlef Bosau wrote:

> Am 19.03.2013 00:39, schrieb Detlef Bosau:
>
>>
>>
>> From what you say it becomes clear, that "congestion control" pursues at
>> least three goals.
>>
>> 1.: Stability (in the sense of "no congestion loss").
>> 2.: Probing/Tuning (to the knee or to the cliff, that doesn't really
>> matter here).
>> 3.: Resource sharing / scheduling.
>>
>> These goals are intertwined, while the first one is the easiest to
>> accomplish: Simply obey the conservation principle and you're done.
>>
>> The interesting issues are the second and the third one.
>>
>> Particularly for the third one, I'm not quite sure whether we really
>> focus on the correct resource here.
>>
>>
> O.k., in some private mail, I was told that all these three goals are
> wrong, so I conclude that none of the aforementioned points is a goal of
> congestion control. Obviously, I did not understand any of the papers and
> PhD theses I read through the last decade.
>
> Hence, the remaining question is: Why do we need congestion control?
>

My answer: Our goal is to enhance overall user experience, and CC aids this
because it allows differential treatment of traffic types, and enhances
goodput within each type.

swb
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.