[attachment=4626]
This article is presented by:
Sally Floyd
PFLDnet 2004
February 16, 2004
Thoughts on the Evolution of TCP in the Internet
OVERVIEW
Past changes to transport protocols.
Additional possible changes:
HighSpeed TCP et al.;
Additional feedback from routers?
Communication between page link layers and transport?
Flow-specific state in routers?
Fundamental limitations:
Of window-based congestion control;
Of congestion control without per-flow state in routers;
Of best-effort service.
RFC 3426: General Architectural and Policy Considerations
Additional possible changes:
HighSpeed TCP et al.;
Additional feedback from routers?
Communication between page link layers and transport?
Flow-specific state in routers?
Fundamental limitations:
Of window-based congestion control;
Of congestion control without per-flow state in routers;
Of best-effort service.
RFC 3426: General Architectural and Policy Considerations
Past history of TCP
Reno/NewReno/SACK:
Half of servers use SACK, many others use NewReno.
Almost all browsers use SACK.
DON’T use Reno in simulations or experiments!!!
Delay-based congestion control:
Vegas, FAST
TCP-Nice and TCP-LowPriority use delay-based congestion control for low priority TCP .
ECN:
Explicit instead of implicit notification.
Standardized but not deployed.
Half of servers use SACK, many others use NewReno.
Almost all browsers use SACK.
DON’T use Reno in simulations or experiments!!!
Delay-based congestion control:
Vegas, FAST
TCP-Nice and TCP-LowPriority use delay-based congestion control for low priority TCP .
ECN:
Explicit instead of implicit notification.
Standardized but not deployed.
