[Iccrg] Re: Heresy in Minneapolis
xu@cse.unl.edu (Lisong Xu) Mon, 17 November 2008 15:12 UTC
From: xu@cse.unl.edu
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:37 +0000
Subject: [Iccrg] Re: Heresy in Minneapolis
In-Reply-To: <200811141915.mAEJFdOY006485@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
References: <389478.7272.qm@web51803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <aa7d2c6d0804041112n411696dfo631cbc0c6aea5258@mail.gmail.com> <200804081207.m38C773V002210@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <aa7d2c6d0804081140mf2ace5chde3312a211e95d6d@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804132229510.31800@tesla.psc.edu> <7D592B64-1759-496A-8746-BB19118472D8@uwaterloo.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804152236370.31800@tesla.psc.edu> <200811141915.mAEJFdOY006485@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Message-ID: <49218BEA.6030602@cse.unl.edu>
X-Date: Mon Nov 17 15:12:37 2008
Bob, Thank for writing such an interesting and important draft! After reading it (quickly), it seems to me that the draft focuses on the fairness between different users. I agree that the fairness between different users is important. But I believe that TCP friendliness is proposed not only for the fairness between different users, but also for the fairness between different applications. So my question is while "volume accounting" helps on the fairness between different users (e.g. single connection vs multiple connections, active vs non-active), will it also help on the fairness between different applications (e.g. FTP vs VoIP, BitTorrent vs Joost)? By the way, we are also working on how to relax the traditional definition of TCP-friendliness. Currently, we are focusing on the impact of UDP-based applications on TCP-based applications. You can find more information here http://csce.unl.edu/~xu/research/stochasticTCP.html. Thanks! Lisong -- Lisong Xu, Assistant Professor Computer Science & Engineering University of Nebraska-Lincoln http://cse.unl.edu/~xu Bob Briscoe wrote: > Matt & I have been having a side conversation about this. > > In summary, we agree on what we don't want, but there's less consensus > on the path ahead. > > I'd like to suggest that those interested in what the IETF needs to do > about relaxing TCP-friendliness make sure they're around in ICCRG. I've > bcc'd a few folks who I suspect will be interested but might not > naturally look in on ICCRG. > > I haven't put this to the r-g chairs, but I imagine a discussion will > start in response to Matt's talk, and might need some time to adjorn to > a bar afterwards (there's one more session before the end of the day > afterwards tho). Perhaps we'll get together a truly ad hoc Bar BoF :) > > I know Matt is also talking on this in TSVWG & TSVAREA, but I imagine > ICCRG ought to be where any initial activity migrates to (& I think Matt > agrees). > > My interest is that I believe TCP friendliness has become a self-imposed > barrier to innovation. What's the point of having the e2e principle if > you stop yourself and everyone else using the freedom it gives on some > dodgy grounds you can't really justify? > > See "Problem Statement: Transport Protocols Don't Have To Do Fairness " > <draft-briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness-01.txt> > > > > Bob > > > At 03:23 16/04/2008, Matt Mathis wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, S. Keshav wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> The paradigm holds sway only in the minds of academia. I >>> think (based almost purely on cynicism), that in the real world TCP >>> friendliness never had a chance. There is a long history of TCP >>> accelerators, multi-connection applications, UDP-blasters, packet >>> classifiers-and-delayers, and who knows what else that have never >>> cared about it. So, why do we need to phase it out? >> >> I would tend to agree. However, isn't this list supposed to represent >> academia? >> >>> Its already a done deal. >> >> Not in TCPM, TSVWG, etc, where dogmatic attachment to TCP-friendly is >> probably hurting the IETF. This is where we need to change minds and >> some deeply entrenched documents. >> >> I think the ADs are probably listening - do they have any commemts? >> >> Thanks, >> --MM-- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Iccrg mailing list >> Iccrg@cs.ucl.ac.uk >> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > Bob Briscoe, <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Networks Research Centre, BT > Research > B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK. +44 1473 > 645196 > > _______________________________________________ > Iccrg mailing list > Iccrg@cs.ucl.ac.uk > http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg >
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Lars Eggert
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Lars Eggert
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Lachlan Andrew
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Eddy, Wesley M. GRC-RCN0[VZ]
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Eddy, Wesley M. GRC-RCN0[VZ]
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped S. Keshav
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Lars Eggert
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Matt Mathis
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped Lachlan Andrew
- [Iccrg] Heresy recapped S. Keshav
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Lachlan Andrew
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Dirceu Cavendish
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Dirceu Cavendish
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Bob Briscoe
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Dirceu Cavendish
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Matt Mathis
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Bob Briscoe
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Bob Briscoe
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Dirceu Cavendish
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Lachlan Andrew
- [Iccrg] Heresy following "TCP: Train-wreck" Bob Briscoe
- [Iccrg] Re: Heresy in Minneapolis Bob Briscoe
- [Iccrg] Re: Heresy in Minneapolis Lisong Xu