Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mon, 13 May 2002 23:55 UTC

Subject: Re: types of traffic in tcp congest control
To: jinw@comp.leeds.ac.uk (J Wu)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:55:59 +0100 (BST)
Cc: dotis@sanlight.net (Douglas Otis), tcp-impl@lerc.nasa.gov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205131853550.30118-100000@cslin135.leeds.ac.uk> from "J Wu" at May 13, 2002 07:15:27 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E177Pfc-0006ei-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: owner-tcp-impl@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 816
Lines: 16

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

So given those two factors, no ISP is going to trade efficiency (they want
maximum efficiency) for QoS, because QoS is a perceived customer value add.
People will pay extra because they want QoS, most of them won't pay extra
because you made the service suck and gave them QoS for free.

Alan