[99078] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call forDemos
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWFuIEt1aHR6?=)
Tue Sep 4 11:21:38 2007
To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, owner-nanog@merit.edu,
"Stephen Stuart" <stuart@tech.org>
Cc: "nanog" <nanog@merit.edu>
From: "=?utf-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWFuIEt1aHR6?=" <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 14:58:23 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Lmao. Thanks, Sean, I just snorted my cup of freshly brewed coffee. Ouch. :-)
------Original Message------
From: Sean Donelan
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
To: Stephen Stuart
Cc: nanog
Sent: Sep 4, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call forDemos
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
>>> Operators are probably more interested in the "fairness" part of
>>> "congestion" than the "efficiency" part of "congestion."
>>
>> TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not
>> per-flow?
>
> How would you define "user" in that context?
Operators always define the "user" as the person paying the bill. One
bill, one user.
Its fun to watch network engineers' heads explode.
--
Sent from my BlackBerry.
