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

[ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 84, Issue 10

    > From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>

    >> To what degree that was the lack of a good understanding of the
    >> problem, and to what degree simply that Van was better at control
    >> theory and analysis of the system than the rest of us, is a good
    >> question

    > It is not a "good question", there is no doubt.

I was being polite... :-)

    > Source Quench was a perfect example of our pre-VJ cluelesssness. Wwhat
    > seemed a plausible congestion control mechanism was in fact completely
    > broken.

Here is the 'SQ is wrong' meme again. But was it really broken, or did we
just not know how to use it?

E.g. if TCP reacted the same way to an SQ as if did to a missing ACK, would
that in fact prevent congestive collapses? I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.

Perhaps Van felt he didn't need SQ, that the missing ACK was a good enough
signal? (Experience shows that there is a lot to that position.) So maybe
there was this feeling that 'perfection has been attained ... when there is
nothing left to take away', and SQ was ditched as un-needed complexity?

I lived through all that, I should know, but I don't! As best I can recall,a
I think there was just this feeling of 'we tried SQ and it didn't work'. Does
anyone know the whole story of how SQ got dumped?

But, as I say, I think it was more that we didn't know how to use it properly -
the fault was in us, not SQ.