<div dir="ltr">On 16 April 2013 20:55, Detlef Bosau <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:detlef.bosau@web.de" target="_blank">detlef.bosau@web.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
O.k., these are practical reasons.<br>
<br>
Are there, however, structural, scientific ones as well?</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>I did quite a bit of work in ns-2 and other tools with Keshav's Packet Pair techniques when I was looking at potential improvements to Slow Start and steady state reliable transport performance. I only had the time to do simulation work, but in my experience, the Packet Pair (Packet Train actually, as I achieved more accurate and reliable results from using a number of packets in the initial probe) provided an efficient (in terms of time to steady state) and accurate (in terms of setting an appropriate initial transfer rate for the session) estimation of the available bandwidth on a path.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>While I understand the theoretical requirements for scheduling changes in intermediate routers, my simulations indicated that this technique provided a "good enough" "finger-in-the-air" estimation of available bandwidth on a path. However, I never got the time/opportunity to do live network tests.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style>--</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>r</div></div>