Re: Is the end to end paradigm appropriate for congestion control?
[email protected] (Noel Chiappa) Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:31:18 -0500 (EST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.end2end |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> From: Detlef Bosau <[email protected]> > And because we did not want to touch the switches I think that's a bit excessive - I think we'd have been OK with making some changes to the switches to produce a viable systemic congestion control system. But I do think we would have (rightly IMO) resisted imposition of e.g. a full hop-by-hop congestion control system (i.e. on path A->B->C->D->E, if E experiences congestion it tells D, which then tells C, etc). Remember the times, though: We tried SQ, that 'didn't work' (although I'm personally still not sure we really understood the fundamental limitations of direct source congestion notification - I think I've written about this before here, too lazy to look in the archives to find it); VJCC 'worked', OK, there are 17 other huge alligators biting at my ankles, time to move on to one of them... > (expecting flames...) Why? I didn't see anything particularly objectionable in your note? Noel