[Tmrg] Now, where were we...?
michawe at ifi.uio.no (Michael Welzl) Thu, 19 November 2009 14:06 UTC
From: "michawe at ifi.uio.no"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:06:47 +0100
Subject: [Tmrg] Now, where were we...?
Message-ID: <BE0E1358-7C27-46A8-AF1E-D8D7CC834A52@ifi.uio.no>
Hi, This prompts me to ask a question that I've been pondering ever since a hallway conversation that I had with Stanislav Shalunov at the Stockholm IETF: > 2. How reliable are implicit congestion indicators? The prevailing > wisdom in the IETF seems to be that "ECN=loss = congestion, delay = > noise, nothing else is useful for congestion control". What criteria > would "delay" have to satisfy in order to be a useful indicator of > congestion? Should we listen to the average delay, the frequency with > which delay exceeds a threshold, or the jitter? Can delay ever be worse as a congestion indicator than loss is? What kinds of misinterpretations can we have, if we carefully interpret it? (by which I mean, for instance, updating "baseRTT" samples every once in a while in order to account for path changes) To be a bit more precise with my question, I pick the "frequency with which delay exceeds a threshold" metric from above. Cheers, Michael
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Lachlan Andrew
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Larry Dunn
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Michael Welzl
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Stefan Hirschmann
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Michael Welzl
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Lachlan Andrew
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Damon Wischik
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Lachlan Andrew
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? John Heffner
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Lachlan Andrew
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Michael Welzl
- [Tmrg] Now, where were we...? Lachlan Andrew