[e2e] Technology marches forward at the expense of the net?

[Shivkumar Kalyanaraman]

I have one question regarding the receiver-based congestion control used
by such schemes. 

They tie the correctness of the layered scheme to the joining and leaving
of groups, and expect routing algorithms to prune the part of the tree
out. 

Now -- the true leave latency should also include the latency of the
multicast routing protocol to prune the tree. 

Not to mention the increase in mcast routing control traffic and churn... 

-Shiv



On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Mark Boolootian wrote:

> It claims
> 
>    throughput can be set to any desired fraction of available link
bandwidth
>    up to 95%; for high bandwidth links, this provides much higher
throughput
>    than is possible with TCP, enabling fast download of very large files
>    even over very long WAN links.
> 
>    a congestion control feature makes file transfers share bandwidth
resources
>    fairly with other network traffic
> 

Aren't the two statements above inherently contradictory? If the "other 
network traffic" is TCP, then how are the bandwidth resources shared 
"fairly"? While in no way advocating the TCP way of doing things, I don't 
see how this scheme could be max-min/proportionally/tcp fair if there is 
other non-MetaContent traffic on the network.

-Vishal



-Shiv
===
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman   
Associate Professor, Dept of ECSE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
110, 8th Street, Room JEC 6003, Troy NY 12180-3590
Ph: 518 276 8979   Fax: 518 276 2433
WWW: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma

A goal is a dream with a deadline -C. Knight