RE: types of traffic in tcp congest control
J Wu <jinw@comp.leeds.ac.uk> Mon, 13 May 2002 18:15 UTC
X-Authentication-Warning: cslin135.leeds.ac.uk: jinw owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:15:27 +0100 (BST)
From: J Wu <jinw@comp.leeds.ac.uk>
X-X-Sender: <jinw@cslin135.leeds.ac.uk>
To: Douglas Otis <dotis@sanlight.net>
Cc: <tcp-impl@lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: types of traffic in tcp congest control
In-Reply-To: <NEBBJGDMMLHHCIKHGBEJMECBDCAA.dotis@sanlight.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205131853550.30118-100000@cslin135.leeds.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tcp-impl@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2323
Lines: 78
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Douglas Otis wrote: > J Wu, > > A given number of Mice may consume the network and reduce effective use of > Elephants even with Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing in the mix. Indeed, give way to mice will decrease the efficiency of the network, but gained a low queuing delay, that is a trade-off. As more real-time applications are deployed to the Internet, it should be worthy. > > With TCP framing where small objects are aligned with the segment at high > rates, would this be Mice or Rats? : ) > > -Doug Still Mice, I think the elephant should be: (transmission data size) >> (Rtt*(transmission rate)) It should be still acceptable for some non-mice non-elephant connections. Say "Taker" or "Panda" :)) Jin. > > On May 13, 2002 8:48 AM J Wu (jinw@comp.leeds.ac.uk) wrote: > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2002, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > > J Wu wrote: > > > > Hi Li, > > > ... > > > > > > > > As my understanding of S.Low's paper that the mice stands for > > > > small scale transmition with delay sensitive and the elephant > > > > stands for large scale transmition. The small scale > > > > transmitions will not cause any congestion, but the large > > > > scale transmitions will. > > > > > > That is an assumption, one which other results, notably of bandwidth > > > limited highly-shared core links (e.g., the US-UK link) refute. They > > > indicate that mice can indeed cause congestion amongst themselves, even > > > in the absence of elephants. > > > > > > Joe > > > > Hi Joe, > > Well, if only the mice can still congest the link, which shows that the > > network resources are under severe shortage. The only way to solve under > > this situation is hardware solution. But I think even under this situation > > restrict the elephants will also do benefit to alleviate the stage of > > congestion. > > > > And also, it seems that most network congestions are take place at access > > network which is not the core network. > > > > > > Another question maybe far from this topic: As the invent of new core > > transmission techniques like DWDM, is congestion control still needed in > > core network? > > > > -- > > Jin Wu > > School of Computing, > > University of Leeds. > > Tel: +44 113 2336806 > > > > > > -- Jin Wu School of Computing, University of Leeds. Tel: +44 113 2336806
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control J Wu
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Joe Touch
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control J Wu
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Joe Touch
- RE: types of traffic in tcp congest control Douglas Otis
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control J Wu
- RE: types of traffic in tcp congest control J Wu
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Joe Touch
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Alan Cox
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Alan Cox
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Alan Cox
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Joe Touch
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Anumita Biswas
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Joe Touch
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Anumita Biswas
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Joe Touch
- Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control Alan Cox
- RE: types of traffic in tcp congest control Douglas Otis