Re: [re-ECN] Pls bash: Congestion Exposure (re-ECN) BoF inHiroshima?

[João Taveira Araújo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

[e-mail] wrote
>
> One of the strengths of the Internet is its ability to share capacity and avoid congestion collapse by using distributed algorithms executed on its end-hosts.  While the resulting allocation of capacity is fair in a certain mathematical sense, it is not necessarily fair in other economic or philosophical senses. 
>
> Further, end-hosts have means to "game the system" to increase their access to capacity, and to progress communications even in the presence of persistent congestion. As a consequence ISPs feel they have to police "heavy users" to free up resources for the bulk of their customers. This involves making assumptions about the wishes of their customers which in turn is eroding trust between ISPs, customers, content providers and application writers.

I'm not entirely sure people unfamiliar with the flow fairness debate 
will understand what "certain mathematical sense" means, or why it's 
suddenly an issue. Suggestion:

"One of the strengths of the Internet is its ability to share capacity 
and avoid congestion collapse by using distributed algorithms executed 
on its end-hosts. The resulting capacity allocation has reflected a 
single definition of fairness however, and has remained inflexible in 
adapting to differing needs as the Internet has scaled to include new 
and often conflicting stakeholders."

I'm fine with the second paragraph, but if you want to avoid the "game 
the system" bit here's my suggestion. Not sure it's clearer though:

"Further, current capacity allocation is prone to self-interest and 
malice, and has resulted in a system where few can obtain more at the 
expense of many. Faced with such vicarious punishment for the bulk of 
their customers, ISPs resort to policing and throttling "heavy users", 
which in turn is eroding trust between ISPs, customers, content 
providers and application writers."

Joao.