[e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc

[Paul Francis]

Hmmmmm.  I'm not sure you read the fastsoft.com material very carefully.  I
looked, and it says in quite a large font "Easy to Deploy".  
 
PF

________________________________

From: L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk [mailto:L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:33 AM
To: Paul Francis; l.andrew at ieee.org
Cc: doug.leith at nuim.ie; end2end-interest at postel.org
Subject: RE: [e2e] performance of BIC-TCP, High-Speed-TCP, H-TCP etc



Paul Francis said on Fri 2006-09-22 23:23:
> Sure, but nevertheless it is interesting to compare them.  I mean, what if
we
> find out that fasttcp is just or nearly just as good as XCP.  This tells us
> not to even bother looking at XCP cause of the deployment cost.

While the Caltech IPR on Fast TCP tells us not to look at Fast TCP because of
the deployment cost.

http://www.fastsoft.com/fasttcp.html

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.

FastTCP has been out of the running for deployment ever since it was first
announced -- with the Caltech IPR shackles mentioned in the slideset.

L. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20060923/0e214be8/attachment.html