Subject: Re: FW: ssthressh

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:22:49 -0600

Mark,

Well, that "something else" I have been doing for several years now
consists of deciding which destination to transmit to based on the
largest congestion window, smallest rto and srtt, least number of
retransmissions and duplicates.  This makes CMT SCTP compete like a
single TCP flow through a bottleneck, but like multiple TCP flows
through independent paths.

--brian

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Mark Allman wrote:

> 
> > This make the SCTP CMT flows, dependent upon each other and they do
> > not behave as two independent flows.
> 
> This is the key difference.  I think we're talking about two different
> things here.
> 
> My point is that blindly using two SCTP flows with RFC2960 congestion
> control in the face of a shared bottleneck will gobble more than the
> app's fair share of the capacity.  Can you do something different to
> mitigate this?  Sure.  But, I agree with Randall that in the absence of
> this "something else" then you're not being a good network citizen and
> it does not work as you have sketched.
> 
> allman

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦