Mark Smith writes:
So your currently requirements are exactly the same as all the
other users of the Internet?
No, but my situation is similar to theirs. They don't require
improvements if their systems do all they require, either.
I find it hard to believe that your requirements are exactly
the same as mine, and I'm only one of the other approximately
500 million people currently accessing the Internet.
They need not be the same as yours. Your requirements, or the
requirements of other users of the Internet, may be even more modest
than mine. Indeed, for the majority of Internet users, this is probably
actually the case.
Do you know what ECN does?
Yes. I've read the RFC.
Can you explain why you don't need it?
The burden of proof is not upon me. It's up to the person recommending
ECN to prove to me that I need it.
I don't experience network congestion with any significant frequency. I
don't need ECN. Packets in my connections are not being dropped, or at
least not to any extent that I've perceived, and this has always been
the case. ECN is an "improvement" that I don't require, and having it
actually makes the Net more inaccessible than it was without ECN,
because not every part of the Net is compatible with ECN.
If there are specific applications so intolerant to congestion-related
packet loss that they justify ECN, then those applications--and only
those--should use ECN. Personally, though, I'd prefer that it always be
turned off by default. The Internet worked before ECN, it will continue
to work today without ECN.