[Tsvwg] Comments on the Usefulness of Simple Best-Effort Traffic
Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com> Sat, 01 September 2007 20:34 UTC
Return-path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRZfv-0006yg-Hp; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:34:35 -0400
Received: from tsvwg by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IRZfu-0006yb-GT for tsvwg-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:34:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRZfu-0006yT-6w for tsvwg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:34:34 -0400
Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRZfs-0003z1-Pl for tsvwg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:34:34 -0400
Received: from mac.com (smtpin03-en2 [10.13.10.148]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout14/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l81KYVBP003005; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (adsl-70-231-237-55.dsl.snfc21.sbcglobal.net [70.231.237.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin03/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l81KYVGW001248; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <5851aa611e56895082ce6fbd52e4c3b0@mac.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:34:30 -0700
To: tsvwg WG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Cc: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: [Tsvwg] Comments on the Usefulness of Simple Best-Effort Traffic
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Mark Allman and I have a new version of our draft on "Comments on the Usefulness of Simple Best-Effort Traffic", draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-01, available at: "http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-01". It includes some changes from feedback from Tim Shephard, Bob Briscoe, and Mitchell Erblich, along with a new citation to a 2004 paper by Jim Roberts on "Internet Traffic, QoS, and Pricing". This draft is targeted to become an individual Informational RFC, not a working group document, so it won't go through Working Group Last Call. However, any feedback would be welcome. - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ Changes from draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-00.txt: * Added a sentence about peer-to-peer traffic opening many simultaneous connections in a session. From Tim Shephard. * Added a discussion on the control of attacks, flash crowds, and the like. Feedback from Tim Shephard. * Clarified the requirements of cost-based fairness in terms of the economic infrastructure. From feedback from Bob Briscoe: * Clarified the definition of simple best-effort traffic. Feedback from Bob Briscoe. * Added a citation to a paper by Jim Roberts on "Internet Traffic, QoS, and Pricing". * Added a discussion of whether either the transport protocol (TCP vs. UDP) or the application should affect the fairness goals for simple best-effort traffic. Added a discussion of the precision of fairness. Feedback from Mitchell Erblich. * Added a sentence to the discussion of byte vs. packet fairness about the bytes in packet headers. Feedback from Mitchell Erblich. And the citation to the Roberts paper: There are, of course, differences of opinion about how well cost-based fairness could be enforced, and how well it fits the commercial reality of the Internet, with [B07] presenting an optimistic view. Another point of view, e.g., from Roberts in a paper on "Internet Traffic, QoS, and Pricing", is that "many proposed schemes are overly concerned with congestion control to the detriment of the primary pricing function of return on investment" [R04].