Is "use TCP when it works, and TRFC when it doesn't" an answer? Arguments like "it's too complex" don't work for me when we're talking transport protocols that have to do congestion control, etc. Congestion control is complex.
Brian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:20 AM To: Bruce Lowekamp Cc: Salman Abdul Baset; [email protected] Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Solution space for fragmentation, congestion control and reliability Hi, On 2009-4-6, at 6:07, Bruce Lowekamp wrote: > We have the option of simpy saying "use TFRC." That will be good > enough performance, and require relatively little specification since > TSV has already put a lot of work into it. It's also a bit > complicated. A lot more complicated than is really needed for most > p2psip implementations/deployments. > > So the motivation of the other options was to provide simpler options > that are going to provide enough performance for many/most > deployments. I'd strongly urge you to use TFRC rather than rolling your own scheme. Don't underestimate the validation effort that is required to ensure that a congestion control scheme is safe to deploy. This has all been done for TFRC, and it must be done for any new scheme. Lars _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
