[e2e] common congestion controller for TCP connections
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Oct 29 11:31:38 PST 2002
Hari Balakrishnan wrote:
> When we wrote our TCP (under Linux; non-BSD!) that decoupled congestion control
> from it and only left the loss recovery in it, the end result was a
> substantially simpler, easier-to-understand TCP and stack. Modularity helps in
> this case quite a bit.
I am not surprised that your rewriting Linux TCP, with the CM or not,
would end up with a substantially simpler TCP and stack. That CM
simplfied things is certainly useful.
> When you're dealing with something as complex as a TCP, I would be wary of
> schemes that claim to be simpler because they only "play with TCB variables".
> As we all know, even a "small" change in a TCP can have unintended, adverse
> interactions and consequences.
Just as rewriting the whole of TCP's congestion management in an
external module is a large change that can have unintended, adverse
interactions and consequences. Not the least of which is needing to
prove, a-priori, that this version of TCP is equivalent to Linux TCP
under the conditions of a particular experiment.
If what is desired is to play with the particular variables being shared
(which is, at least I think, the point of the proposed work), CM may
have unintended artifacts that affect an implementation.
More information about the end2end-interest