Congestion Control
Black_David@emc.com Tue, 01 August 2000 15:58 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ips@ECE.cmu.edu>
Received: from ECE.CMU.EDU by cnoc.pdl.cs.cmu.edu id aa08514; 1 Aug 2000 11:58 EDT
Received: by ece.cmu.edu (8.9.2/8.8.8) id KAA11079 for ips-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:39:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f
Received: from maho3msx2.isus.emc.com (maho3msx2.isus.emc.com [168.159.208.81]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.9.2/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA11063 for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:39:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: by maho3msx2.isus.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <PYZ1HB6M>; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:38:42 -0400
Message-ID: <0F31E5C394DAD311B60C00E029101A070148FBE6@corpmx9.isus.emc.com>
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Congestion Control
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:38:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk
I've occasionally had people ask me whether link and session/connection flow control is/are adequate for IP networks. The answer is *no* - congestion control is necessary over and above basic flow control measures. This is one of the reasons why iSCSI employs TCP. Further explanation can be found in the following document which will appear shortly as a Best Current Practice (BCP) RFC. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-floyd-cong-04.txt Thanks, --David --------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909 black_david@emc.com Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------
- Congestion Control Black_David