Yes, that's a valid option. Probably the right one at this point. In fact, the solution space as I last sent it out looks like:
- stop and wait - simplified AIMD - TFRC - (TCP over UDP might go here if a draft existed) - TCP The argument has mostly been about the simplified AIMD. I kind of hate to lose it, but you're right, it will be a lot less controversial if we do. Actually, TFRC is a pretty flexible protocol itself, so we can probably just do something a bit more within that framework if we want to have options. stop and wait was always intended as maybe a development-type protocol, not a real deployable protocol (although it would work OK in a small office environment) Bruce On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Brian Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
