Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions-03

[ken carlberg <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:

> 
> The chances of much loss following ECN CE are, I assume, fairly low, so it seems very tenuous to be thinking of adding the complexity of FEC when a small amount of loss can probably be handled just fine.

depends on the event causing the congestion.  my assumption is that the vast majority of these events are brief transitive events, and as you say, can be handled fine.  however, the events I get exposed to (eg, disasters, sudden weather events, sustained flash crowds) last from tens of minutes, hours, and even days, which is much too long for certain folks.  

> I still think a nearly unresponsive algo would give you nearly exactly the same behaviour as exemption if 1% or 10% authorized users did happen, but it would still avoid boiling the network if you did get 90%. Whereas completely unresponsive would not.

yes, a fair point, which we need to make clear in the document.

-ken