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