Re: VJCC vs. Keshav
Jon Crowcroft <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.end2end |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In missive <[email protected]>, Detlef Bosau typed: >>I'm curious, why the proposal by Keshav (his PhD thesis on Internet >>Congestion Control) was not widely adopted but VJCC instead. >>The main difference is that VJCC is purely end to end, while Keshav >>proposes schedulers on each node. >>Was this decision made for scalability reasons? "half" the deployment complexity: keshav's thesis involves changing all routers & all hosts all routers have to do RR instead of FIFO all hosts have to do packet pair VJ's scheme just involved hosts downloading the BSD TCP update or cloning it for irix and the other 2.5 OSs that had m/cs on the internet in 87/88 was a bit easier, plus this is 5 years before prime time commercial ISPs, so you had a chance to run experimental transport but still had to be Cisco if you wanted to run experimental forwarding/scheduling at scale... cheers jon