Re: [conex] Potentially interesting ConEx problem

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 07 March 2013 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD7911E80D9 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:34:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YbdCvlmPBk41 for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:34:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5192611E80D3 for <conex@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:34:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1AEB69C; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 05:34:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CF89A; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 05:34:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 05:34:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E9AB12C1E0A@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1303070525590.378@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAH56bmD5c3KjVxg3gf9utBTQDLQS3HnxjVbpYf1Bby=iOB85bQ@mail.gmail.com> <201303050953.r259rCTS000573@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <CAH56bmAn5MzD8UVAXKEoQf-kWdeyM-08QM9mxUT0pLDyx4xVDA@mail.gmail.com> <354A9577-4AE9-4094-93B8-2778E9B6A80A@cisco.com> <CAH56bmBKsVfo2-2gL6sKAYT18XSrq2N31YEViwp0ZxTSBbWYOQ@mail.gmail.com>, <alpine.DEB.2.00.1303060616540.14991@uplift.swm.pp.se> <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E9AB12C1E0A@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: ConEx IETF list <conex@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [conex] Potentially interesting ConEx problem
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 04:34:25 -0000

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote:

> I do not understand how a congestion manager solves the problem raised 
> here.

Are you referring to TCP or Conex here?

> Also, since you seem to be unhappy with TCPM, please recall that at 
> least I was interested in seeing empirical data for the timer problem 
> you described (e. g., real OS traces). But that discussion would be 
> better suited for the TCPM list, imho.

Well, I'm not going back to the TCPM list with my idea (I felt there was 
consensus there this wasn't anything for TCP), I'll try to pitch my idea 
to other parties that might actually have an understanding for my the 
problem I'm experiencing and get running code into operating systems 
first.

I've moved over to "mosh" (http://mosh.mit.edu/) which solves my problem 
nicely by avoiding TCP and using UDP instead.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se