Re: Is the end to end paradigm appropriate for congestion control?

PCN is working on an experimental flow control system for the Internet,

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

It's a problem many people are aware of, and many people would like to solve.

RB


On 11/13/2013 7:38 AM, Detlef Bosau wrote:
> Hi Manu,
>
> Am 13.11.2013 13:58, schrieb Emmanuel Lochin:
>> Hi Detlef,
>>
>> Such idea has already been proposed at the IETF'73 see
>> http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/logjam-slides-ietf73.pdf
>> and I found the meeting minutes here:
>> *http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/73/minutes/tsvarea.txt*
>> It seems that this might introduce problem for secure communications
>> in particular when using IPSec.
>>
>
> Actually my thoughts are quite similar - you pointed me to this work
> quite some years ago.
>
> One problem in this approach is the buffer sharing concept at switching
> nodes - I'm not quite sure whether flow- and congestion-control of
> adjacent segments are fully decoupled here, another problem is the use
> of splitting PEP here.
>
> We can work around the semantics problem of splitting PEP by introducing
> an additional ACK in TCP, where the "normal" ACK works
> for clocking and a second "End to End ACK" conveys the receiver's ACK to
> the sender.
>
> A really tough problem however would be caused by the extensive use of
> splitting gatways and hence flow related state information on each node.
> Does this really scale with a huge number of flows?
>
>

-- 
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum
(408) 829-4944 (mobile)
(415) 967-2900 (office)