[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

flow control was partly managed by round-trip time measurements, window
size and packet length adjustments on an end/end basis. There are networks
that managed flows (OpenFlow recently, Anagran and Caspian) but none that I
know about that did so across network boundaries.


On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Detlef Bosau <detlef.bosau at web.de> wrote:

> 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"?
> Detlef
> 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/20140822/650bff28/attachment.html>