Re: [Bloat] [iccrg] Musings on the future of Internet Congestion Control

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1447 bytes --]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote:

>>>> There are plenty of useful things that they can do and yes, I personally think they’re the way of the future - but **not** in their current form, where they must “lie” to TCP, cause ossification,
>>>
>>> 	[SM] Here I happily agree, if we can get the nagative side-effects removed that would be great, however is that actually feasible or just desirable?
>>> 
>>>> etc. PEPs have never been considered as part of the congestion control design - when they came on the scene, in the IETF, they were despised for breaking the architecture, and then all the trouble with how they need to play tricks was discovered (spoofing IP addresses, making assumptions about header fields, and whatnot). That doesn’t mean that a very different kind of PEP - one which is authenticated and speaks an agreed-upon protocol - couldn’t be a good solution.
>>>
>>> 	[SM] Again, I agree it could in theory especially if well-architected. 
>> 
>> That’s what I’m advocating.
>
> 	[SM] Well, can you give an example of an existing well-architected PEP as proof of principle?

the windows protocols work very poorly over high latency links (i.e. long 
distance links) and the PEPs that short circuit those protocols make life much 
nicer for users as well as reducing network traffic.

it's a nasty protocol to start with, but it's the reality on the ground and 
proxies do help a lot.

David Lang