On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 06:51:34 +0100 (CET)
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > The problem is that any protocol is mostly blind to the underlying
> > network (and that can change). To use dave's analogy it is like being
> > put in the driver seat of
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:51 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > The problem is that any protocol is mostly blind to the underlying
> > network (and that can change). To use dave's analogy it is like being
> > put in the driver seat of a vehicle
>>If I can restate that in a more concrete way: the queue may not drain at a
>>smooth, constant rate. There are several real-world link technologies which
>>exhibit this behaviour - wifi and DOCSIS come to mind, not to mention 3G/4G
>>with variable signal strength.
This!
Also, bottlenecks
> On 30 Nov, 2018, at 12:32 pm, Luca Muscariello
> wrote:
>
> Two last comments: one should always used fluid approximation with care,
> because they are approximations,
> the real model is more complex. Nobody considers that the RTT varies during
> the connection lifetime and that ACK can
Mario,
agreed.
Two last comments: one should always used fluid approximation with care,
because they are approximations,
the real model is more complex. Nobody considers that the RTT varies during
the connection lifetime and that ACK can be delayed.
So CWD increases in a non simple way.
This is
Luca,
I'm not that happy with the theorem either, since it stresses a
limitation that can actually be overcome. However, I quoted it to
demonstrate there is a challenge involved.
In my point of view there is actually a subtle thing that's often lost
when modeling the queue based on input
