Armondo - nice discussion.
Just a couple of notes on one of my favorite topics...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Armando L. Caro Jr." <me(_at_)armandocaro(_dot_)net>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Randall R. Stewart (home)"
"'ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org' Discussion" <IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11
This _kind_ of a solution has already been proposed by Joe Touch and
Faber in their ICNP 97 paper, "Dynamic Host Routing for Production
Developmental Networks". It works, but on of the problems is that
path information from the transport. TCP maintains congestion
information about a single destination, with the assumption that the
will not change during the connection. If it does occasionally, then
fine. However, with multihoming, the change may be a common
throughtout the lifetime of a connection depending on the
the use of the multiple paths (failover, concurrent multipath
etc). So TCP (or whatever transport) should not be blind to the fact
data is potentially going over a different path. Otherwise, the
control parameters/algorithms will not work properly.
Yeah, you might think that. I did, when we proposed TRIGTRAN (how
could finding out that a link failed be WRONG?).
The problem was that when we were discussing notifications like
PATH_CHANGE (or whatever we ended up calling it), the TCP has a
decision to make when it sees PATH_CHANGE - "do I
- slow start, recognizing that I now haven't got the remotest clue
what the path capacity is, or
- maintain my congestion window and try to actually LOSE something
before I decide that I need to adjust?"
TCPs have been ignoring things like ICMP Unreachable for decades, so
the second idea isn't totally bogus - they respond to actual loss, not
to the potential for loss.
Once you decide that your path change is no different than cross
traffic starting and stopping, which we adjust to after losing
something, transports ignoring path changes makes a lot of sense. If
you are changing paths frequently (and round-robin would be the
limiting case), slow-starting every time you change paths is
excessive - and, if you're going to respond to PATH_CHANGE, what else
would you do? You could do congestion avoidance during the first round
trip, or actually lose something and do congestion avoidance on the
second round trip - not a big difference, conceptually.
[deleted down to]
Yes.. if you wanted to do HTTP over SCTP and use features such
as streams you WOULD WANT to extend HTML so that you could
have the client "get pages" on particular streams...
Why extend the markup language?
I think that was a typo...
Commonly-deployed browsers don't pipeline HTTP requests because they
don't get any advice on (1) size of objects or (2) recommended
retrieval order. Extending HTML to provide one or the other would make
at least as much sense as extending HTTP.
HTTP has supported sessions that stay alive so they can be used
more than just one operation for many years now. The trouble is
you get head of line blockage if you fetch all the elements that
up a WWW page in serial fashion. Being able to multiplex different
streams (within an SCTP session) that all fetch elements
would fix this. This of course requires changes to both HTTP
and servers, but it should otherwise be transparent to the user.
As above - fetching all elements simultaneously makes perfect sense to
transport guys, but can give pretty flaky-looking pages during
retrieval. If you think HTTP/1.1 with two connections makes sense, you
might start retrieving the smallest elements on one connection and the
largest on the other, and meet in the middle, but since the browser
has no idea how to do this, it's pretty difficult to resist the
temptation to wait for a connection to become idle before sending
And this is why HTTP over cellular links has horrible throughput - if
you stop-and-wait request 300-byte objects with one-second RTTs, your
throughputp looks a LOT like 300 bytes per second...