Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 14 May 2002 00:36 UTC

Message-ID: <3CE05C17.8000808@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:36:39 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.0+) Gecko/20020509
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: J Wu <jinw@comp.leeds.ac.uk>, Douglas Otis <dotis@sanlight.net>, tcp-impl@lerc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control
References: <E177Pfc-0006ei-00@the-village.bc.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tcp-impl@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1034
Lines: 32


Alan Cox wrote:
>>>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.
> 
> 
> Economic reality #1: Usage expands to fit network bandwidth

Usage expands to fit available bandwidth when bandwidth is limited. 
Granted that's the case on most links (like most highways), which are 
deployed (by design) to barely keep pace with demand.

There are plenty of cases where this isn't true, however. Bandwidth can 
be overprovisioned; it just usually isn't.

> Economic reality #2: People will pay more for QoS - right now via private
> 		     IP networks

More specifically:

	People will pay more to avoid commercials and get higher
	bandwidth.

Users haven't been paying for anything sophisticated enough to call QoS.

Joe