Subject: Re: [NSIS] framework: proposal on congestion/flow control

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:49:03 -0700 (PDT)

*> 
  *> Some signaling messages may only be of a sporadic nature
  *> (e.g. the RETRY or REPAIR messages in the draft) - for
  *> such messages, the initial negotiations of protocols such
  *> as TCP and DCCP would be unnecessary overhead (if a
  *> routing protocol used DCCP to convey its messages, it
  *> would introduce additional state in routers!), so UDP
  *> would be the protocol of choice.
  *> 

I wonder how you can do congestion control without state at each end,
which requires setup.  How does it help to use UDP and move the
congestion state into the "application", i.e., into NSLP?  It would
seem that DCCP is what the doctor ordered here.

Bob Braden

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: "Michael Welzl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:29:19 +0200

Hi,

> seem that DCCP is what the doctor ordered here.

If you think that this is reasonable for each and every type
of signaling message (no cynism here - I'm just not sure), then
I agree. I only wanted to make a case for some kind of rate
limiting function instead of
congestion-control-for-some-cases-and-nothing-at-all-otherwise.

Best regards,
Michael