Bruce Lowekamp wrote: > 802.11 is a bad example. It needs reliability because its losses > aren't well-correlated with congestion.
I do not expect network congestion to be the main cause of packet losses in distributed overlays either. Factors like peer failures and link instability in wireless/ad-hoc networks will probably have greater impact, no? > Even if the overlay link protocol does have reliability, you still > need to shed load with finite-length queues (or push back) to avoid > congestion collapse/infinite queues. I'm curious what literature > you're thinking off that argues otherwise. The fact that hop-by-hop reliability cannot replace end-to-end -- and I don't think that's what Henning was arguing for -- doesn't mean that the contrary is always true. It happens to be a good approximation in some scenarios, e.g. when the hops are very stable hardware routers and the links wires, but in the general case it is an oversimplistic assumption. -- Ciao, Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
