Re: [multipathtcp] High-level design decisions /architecture

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Ford, Alan wrote:
...
>>>     * 3 application profiles are mentioned (Bulk data transport,
>>>       Latency-sensitive transport with overflow, Latency-sensitive
>>>       transport with hot stand by)
>>>           o [Question: how are these supported? Is a negotiation
>>>             mechanism needed?]
>> Seems at odds with the claims above for [1],[2],[3]. I.e., bulk
>> transport seems compatible with all three, but latency-sensitive seems
>> like it might not be compatible with any of these.
> 
> Latency-sensitive would still be compatible with [1] and [2] but is
> not so concerned with congestion sharing. Having said that, it would
> be likely that the least congested path is optimal for most cases of
> latency-sensitive transport!

That depends on whether you're dominated by propagation, queuing, or
capacity. If you have long message, the last two are more important. If
you have short messages, the first two are. Congestion affects only
queuing, and can be swamped by capacity or propagation.

I.e., it's not a simple decision.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrwhcQACgkQE5f5cImnZruV2wCgqNGr1KIiwsp53sdRoIuB//Dl
LEcAoIJSqlZ5xxM4kOKKVghHwpWhkglO
=1ICg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----