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

[Lloyd Wood]

At Saturday 23/09/2006 09:15 -0400, Paul Francis wrote:
>Seriously though...
>
>There is another way to view the question of whether fasttcp is out 
>of the running or not.  Which is, if FastTCP is commercialized (and 
>by the way the Fastsoft deployment model is a simple and popular one)

really? If it's so popular, which OS vendors have adopted FastTCP(TM)?

(Microsoft developed its own Compound TCP. Linux is going with CUBIC 
variants. These avoid IPR restrictions and licenses.)

L.


>, then it seems that FastTCP is exactly the protocol that you want 
>to be benchmarking against alternatives.
>
>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>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.