IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ledbat] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-08.txt

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 18 October 2011 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8DA21F8CEA for <ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 UVSI+Tp0JMkh for <ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B034521F8CDF for <ledbat@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.38.64] (205.158.58.226.ptr.us.xo.net [205.158.58.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9IJR1WJ004756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E9DD306.4020402@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:27:02 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Ros <David.Ros@telecom-bretagne.eu>
References: <4E92338F.1030601@fandm.edu> <4E93032B.7090006@isi.edu> <201110101846.26115.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> <4E932F77.5060006@isi.edu> <4E993917.5030508@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <B815665B-6E3C-4556-81D1-19C57DFDAD39@isi.edu> <AC76EB13-3550-42C3-AB04-0F5EEA3DF3B6@telecom-bretagne.eu>
In-Reply-To: <AC76EB13-3550-42C3-AB04-0F5EEA3DF3B6@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Janardhan Iyengar <jana.iyengar@gmail.com>, ledbat@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ledbat] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-08.txt
X-BeenThere: ledbat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of the LEDBAT WG <ledbat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ledbat>
List-Post: <mailto:ledbat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:28:09 -0000

On 10/18/2011 8:29 AM, David Ros wrote:
...
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if I'm getting this totally wrong, but: is it really
> *necessary*
> that LEDBAT's INIT_CWND be *smaller* than TCP's? As far as I understand,
> the point of LEDBAT is to be less-than-best-effort over (relatively)
> long timescales, or at least over time scales longer than one (initial)
> RTT. And just starting up as TCP won't make it *more* aggressive than
> TCP. Is this correct??

No, but it could make it a lot like TCP if the offered load is in short 
bursts. If that's not the intent, then the INIT_CWND needs to be smaller 
than TCP's.

Joe

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status