UDP vs. TCP distribution [was: Re: [e2e] Can feedback be generated...]

[Sean Doran]

| If carriers at all points got "paid" based on average latency, the 
| investment would be there to move latency to a better attractor, which 
| would track latent demand.  This is something I've been trying to get 
| started for a long time.  The movement to pay carriers based on traffic 
| volume, rather than delay experienced, will always drive the system to its 
| worst case latency.

It's not going to be cheaper to have an empty network than to have
one with a bottleneck here and there.   It's also not like there
are that many applications that are so inelastic that latency is
worth paying real extra $ to remove, when volume-over-time figures
are "good enough" to make the per-available-mbps or 95th-percentile-utilization
charges worth it, and there is no obvious killer app that is unamenable
to adapting to the Internet's "rough approximation" of good performance,
on the grounds that it's cheaper to do that than to do fancy QoS everywhere.

| we need a closed loop congestion control that works in the time-scale of 
| fiber deployment and LAN-speed upgrades.  We don't have one that does this, 

Well, so convince people it's cheaper than what we have now, without
eliminating (much) utility.  Start with explaining what it takes to have 
a bounded queueing delay at every potential or real bottleneck.

	Sean.