Re: [tsvwg] draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions -- which WG?

[ken carlberg <[e-mail]>]

Excellent.  Cool stuff.

-ken


On Oct 29, 2012, at 4:25 AM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ken,
> 
> You've asked: Which vendors dynamically change packet size due to loss?
> 
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.161.226&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> 
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.161.5738&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> 
> 
> If the links don't work, type in "Skype" and "Congestion" in citeseer or look for authors Dario Bonfiglio, Marco Mellia, Michela Meo, Nicolò Ritacca, Dario Rossi or Luca De Cicco, Saverio Mascolo, Vittorio Palmisano.
> 
> Regards, Rüdiger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael:
>> and a ton of ideas (using DiffServ, using RSVP, using FEC, whatnot). I think that listing all the possible ideas of things one could possibly do in response to an ECN-mark is pretty pointless. Why not add NSIS? Why not change the packet size in response to ECN? Why not stop the flow if there is heavy congestion? And (rinse and) repeat? Why not change this in the codec, this in the codec, that in the codec? It's really an endless list!
> 
> Ken:
> how many implementations by vendors have you seen of NSIS?  Which vendors dynamically change packet size due to loss?  Perhaps I'm long on the tooth, but I've seen *deployed* implementations (outside of the research/academic lab) of diff-serv, RSVP, FEC, and CODECS producing different load rates, along with a number of protocols associated with these designs.  NSIS is an experimental protocol, which I didn't feel comfortable including in the list, but if you feel differently, I'll be happy to read any text you'd like to propose.
>