<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092321213-23092006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Seriously though...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092321213-23092006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092321213-23092006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>There is another way to view the question of whether
fasttcp is out of the running or not. Which is, i</FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=092321213-23092006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>f FastTCP is
commercialized (and by the way the Fastsoft deployment model is a simple and
popular one), then it seems that FastTCP is exactly the protocol that you want
to be benchmarking against alternatives. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092321213-23092006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092321213-23092006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>PF</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
[mailto:L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:33
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Paul Francis; l.andrew@ieee.org<BR><B>Cc:</B>
doug.leith@nuim.ie; end2end-interest@postel.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [e2e]
performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Paul Francis said on Fri 2006-09-22 23:23:<BR>> Sure, but
nevertheless it is interesting to compare them. I mean, what if we<BR>>
find out that fasttcp is just or nearly just as good as XCP. This tells
us<BR>> not to even bother looking at XCP cause of the deployment
cost.<BR><BR>While the Caltech IPR on Fast TCP tells us not to look at Fast TCP
because of the deployment cost.<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.fastsoft.com/fasttcp.html">http://www.fastsoft.com/fasttcp.html</A><BR><BR>Note
that the correct name of the protocol is FastTCP(TM) -- and that in FastSoft's
preferred deployment model, you'd have to deploy their PEPs in front of every
LAN... not so different from XCP.<BR><BR>FastTCP has been out of the running for
deployment ever since it was first announced -- with the Caltech IPR shackles
mentioned in the slideset.<BR><BR>L.</FONT> </P></BODY></HTML>