IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Wed, 04 November 2009 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFD13A69FB for <multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:03:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.867
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.732, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dc2q7Yaou2-L for <multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006313A69FA for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.180.171.12] ([192.100.104.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA4J3K6o047981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:03:22 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-42--118683946"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <3B0898A2-0F7E-4128-B789-AC54A5D64B56@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:03:10 -0800
Message-Id: <93D4E6CB-455F-4A4E-B8B3-2A0BDC2E2903@nokia.com>
References: <4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC06363A62@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <2181C5F19DD0254692452BFF3EAF1D6808C85177@rsys005a.comm.ad.roke.co.uk> <20091104.195734.88191535.nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <3B0898A2-0F7E-4128-B789-AC54A5D64B56@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
To: Costin Raiciu <c.raiciu@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.194]); Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:03:25 +0200 (EET)
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] High-level design decisions /architecture
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multipathtcp>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:17 -0000

On 2009-11-4, at 3:15, Costin Raiciu wrote:
> This is an open issue indeed. If the endpoint is sending, it can
> control how much data to put on each subflow. When it's receiving,
> our current thinking is to use ECN (or worse, packet drops) to reduce
> the bandwidth on a given subflow.

With per-subflow receive windows, you can use receive window tuning,  
too.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email