On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Ole Tange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Soh Kam Yung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [http://spectrum.ieee.org/dec08/7027] >> >> I expected this article to appear earlier >> [http://www.lugs.org.sg/pipermail/slugnet/2008-March/018775.html] but >> still an interesting read. >> >> ===== >> A Fairer, Faster Internet Protocol > > I tried understanding it, but I cannot see how it will guard against a > P2P application that puts a high weight on each of its connections.
Cap. Just not on bandwidth, but of some formula based on the weight you assigned to the connection and the bandwidth its utilizing. A very simplified example would be (not saying this is it, it's just an example): f(download_size, weight) = download_size * weight If someone were to download 100GB of something with weight 10, we would have (ignoring unit): f(100GB, 10) = 1000 If he were to assign weight of 0.1, we'd have f(100GB, 0.1) = 10 The problem is how to enforce such cap, which were previously unenforceable. The paper claims it founds a way to enforce it, which seems plausible from my casual reading. -- Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
