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

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

Costin Raiciu wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> The proposed congestion controller gives the aggregate multipath
> connection the throughput a TCP would get on the best (fastest) of the 
> paths available (to the multipath connection). It does so only by
> looking at loss rates and rtts on the different paths. It does not need
> to know whether there is a shared bottleneck or not.

If it doesn't, then you will create the potential for a single multipath
group to fight with itself, which seems less than productive.

Joe

> On 3 Nov 2009, at 16:16, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2009-11-2, at 16:56, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> How do you know whether 5.6.7.8 is the same place as the first
>>>>> connection, or a new place? Don't you need to figure that out to know
>>>>> whether you end up with new capacity, or need to share capacity?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you care whether it's the same location or not - the
>>>> linked congestion control proposal doesn't infer topology information
>>>> from IP addresses.
> 
> That's news to me. Seems like this whole thing assumes topology
> information from IP addresses.
> 
> Joe
_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrwWg8ACgkQE5f5cImnZrsl9QCg5mq7XhPTgxWBr7DL59oUYMWh
FF8AoOOsZ02iVPDNdce69te6rWtwb24v
=9OnI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----