IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 05 December 2022 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A033C157B5B for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 19:53:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id epuh49RHSEkr for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 19:53:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 174B2C14CF19 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 19:53:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 53134 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2022 03:44:43 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 5 Dec 2022 03:44:43 -0000
Message-ID: <71968d64-f401-3099-2e8c-3999a757076a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 12:53:44 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols
Content-Language: en-US
To: Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: bier@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
References: <Y4ovyV074qa3gLSu@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAEeTejLa8sdJVU_2OfTo=ZgWRY-kv_7M=xiR-bLyBEXhSDP=Eg@mail.gmail.com> <e2527c9c-c7d1-c6b7-a067-e5ccbdc7e997@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <E1p1PaX-009tgu-Hl@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk> <c86d7ae6-3dad-04be-9c16-0135cc95fe73@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <E1p1Rbe-009zgN-1s@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk> <643e9272-979a-2a0a-d702-2b63cf0de5c4@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAEeTejJ3yS2fARZNchumfkNyc0cnFfVSW7VdtBaGzhJQ9KmpBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CAEeTejJ3yS2fARZNchumfkNyc0cnFfVSW7VdtBaGzhJQ9KmpBg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/GTejwtxiMcZyv5mvJVaWBM0cCeo>
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General Discussion list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/routing-discussion/>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 03:53:48 -0000

Jon Crowcroft wrote:

> I would use multipath quic rather than tcp.

Multipath within a link?

> And for bier CTL, we want
> a fine hoppy protocol like PGMcc

Insisting on multicast instead of TCP mesh is not
very meaningful because, though the number of data
packets sent may be reduced, the number of data
packets received stays same, unless routers merge
some data, which requires the routers have large
(how large depends on application layer time out)
buffer, know how to and not to merge data and have
enough computation power.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email