Re: [conex] Accounting of ConEx signals

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Altho Chris is right that you can get packet congestion, the digging behind
> the byte-pkt draft below found that byte-congestion is predominant on the
> Internet.
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest/>
> And the Internet is like this for good technical reasons. Designers of kit
> want the forwarding engine to still be in control when it gets congested, so
> machines are _generally_ designed so the processor can still cope even when
> the link is flat-lining with small packets.

there is LOTS of kit that behaves very badly with line-rate min-len
packets... If part of the reasoning behind conex is 'cost to upgrade',
there are likely lots of places using this elderly kit which can't be
'cost effectively' upgraded.

Anyway, it seems the discussion is spiraling toward an answer and I
was only interested in noting that 'not always is the byte what
bites.'.

-chris