[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] FC vs CC Re: [e2e] Fwd: Re: Once again buffer bloat and CC. Re: A Cute Story. Or: How to talk completely at cross purposes. Re: When was Go Back N adopted by TCP

Vint, when I may ask you directly: I frequently read your catenet model
for internetworking and your paper with Bob Kahn from 74.

I'm still to understand your position towards flow control between
adjacent (IP-)nodes and the subnets as well. We eventually agreed that
subnets must not do flow control (but discard packets, which cannot be
served) in order to avoid head of line blocking. Would it make sense
(though it might not be possible for practical reasons) to assume /
employ a flow based flow control which would even work in and through
the concatenated subnets?

So we wouldn't have a best effort packet switching but (in a sense) some
kind of "flow switching"?


Am 22.08.2014 um 16:33 schrieb Vint Cerf:
> Donald Davies had the idea of an isarithmic network: a fixed number of
> packets in the network at all times. Issues however included getting
> "empty packets" to places with data to send. Like the taxi problem
> where they end up at favored destinations but are not available
> without deadheading to favored origins. 
> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224730989_The_Control_of_Congestion_in_Packet-Switching_Networks
> v

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20140822/537189e4/attachment.html>