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

[ih] Why did congestion happen at all? Re: why did CC happen at all?


Detlef Bosau wrote:
> Am 31.08.2014 um 08:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
>> So, you're saying that accidents, rush hours, and construction DON'T
>> cause congestion on the A7/E45?  Or that people don't people don't
>> adjust their schedules or routes based on traffic reports?
>> Miles Fidelman
> At least in Germany, wie try (admittedly without sucess) to avoid
> traffic congestion by careful planning.

So, your earlier statement:
> >/  There are dozens of all days life examples where resources must be
> />/  allocated or assigned, we have well proven algorithms for these
> />/  purposes. E.g. in Germany, you can travel by car from Flensburg to
> />/  F?ssen. And there is no need for probing, no need for dropped cars and
> />/  car corruption is considered an accident./

is simply bogus.  You DON'T "have well proven algorithms for  these 
> It is always a pity to visit a widow only to tell her: "Unfortunately,
> your husband is not coming home today, he was dropped together with his
> car this afternoon due to traffic jam near to Frankfurt."

And how is it any better to tell her: "sorry, your husband is not coming 
home today, by the time the ambulance got to him, he was already dead, 
due to a traffic jam near to Frankfort."  Either way, congestion is real 
- and there aren't proven algorithms to avoid/prevent it under all 
circumstances.  Dropped packet, stuck in traffic (or a buffer), refused 
network entry by flow-control push-back --- same end result.
> Particularly, the ARPANET in its original design offered the necessary
> equipment to get along without this nonsense.

No.  It didn't.  As several of us who were there, have told you. The 
documentation is also pretty easy to find - try googling "BBN Report 
1822," "imp-to-imp protocol", and, "ARPANET 1822L" for starters.
> And now, we are to overcome the consequences. And we do so for about 25
> years. (And we are going still to do so in 25 years, when we don't
> attack the basic problem: the lack of proper scheduling and proper flow
> control.)

Hard problem, no particularly good solution, despite lots of trying.  
Partial solutions that work, each under different sets of conditions.  A 
work in progress as things continue to change.
> My only intention is to pursue a different way of thinking here. No
> more, no less. (However, we are that brainwashed by these nonsense PhD
> projects on "congestion control" who attempt to keep a dead mummy alive,
> that we rather sacrifice the world than our probing/dropping nonsense.)

You started by asking about history.  Then you complain that the problem 
has already been solved - in the ARPANET, and by German traffic 
engineers; it hasn't, by either.  Then you repeat the assertion that all 
the engineers who've worked the problem, over the years, are producing 
"nonsense" and are "brainwashing" people.

Maligning the work of others is unbecoming and annoying.  If you're so 
much smarter than everyone else, how about generating code, 
demonstrating it, and publishing some RFCs.  Otherwise, perhaps you 
might be wise to ponder these words of H.L.Mencken: "For every complex 
problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

(with not much respect due)
Miles Fidelman

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra