Michael,
On 25/07/2022 09:49, Michael Welzl wrote:
On 25 Jul 2022, at 10:47, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25. Jul 2022, at 10:42, Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote:
There is overload, which is undesirable; there is also underload, which is no
less desirable. In between, there is an ideal state that CC algorithms aim for:
100% utilization at the bottleneck but no adverse effects for anyone.
I would call this “saturation” or “full utilization” or something like that,
but not “congestion”.
So this is all about “load control”?
I like this!
Proper sharing of capacity is the other part of the function.
Correct. (this comment made me think of additions to your suggested name
above, but they just complicate it … “load control” is really nice IMO!)
[BB] I'm afraid 'load control' doesn't work for me. It's better than
'congestion control' because of the negative connotations. But 'load'
implies a slow aggregate average. The group is likely to be working on
algorithms to prevent queue spikes (eg. improving flow start-up, pacing
segmentation offload, etc), I don't think anyone would understand that's
what the group is doing if it were called 'load control'.
My suggestion: congestion avoidance.
I remember Van Jacobson promoted this term in place of CC, when he last
appeared at the IETF to present CoDel.
Indeed, he wrote a paper that some might have heard of: "Congestion
Avoidance and Control"
(It's unfortunate though that CA was also given as the name of only
one phase of the CC.)
The WG acronym could then be CALR, or perhaps even CAR (Congestion
Avoidance and Recovery). If AQM were also in the charter, I think that
name would still cover it.
BTW, I would also say that 'rate control' is not a brilliant name, 'cos
it doesn't include controlling delay once the rate saturates.
Cheers,
Michael
--
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
