Possible Torrent Alternative.
andrew.jorgensen at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 12:24:11 MDT 2007
On 10/24/07, Levi Pearson <levi at cold.org> wrote:
> "Andrew Jorgensen" <andrew.jorgensen at gmail.com> writes:
> > As long as you don't do a significantly worse job than the authors
> > of TCP and you're not trying to implement all of the features of TCP
> > you will not have "slower downloads" than you would with TCP.
> Assuming that you can do as good a job as the authors of TCP is
> questionable. It's a complex protocol, and is that way for a reason.
> It has developed to where it is today by responding to real-world
> challenges, and it has proved to be effective at meeting them. Have
> you seen the book 'TCP/IP Illustrated'? Not a small tome.
Doesn't that book contain chapters on all the major protocols at the
time it was written? FTP alone could take up a big chunk of that.
I've read the RFCs for several protocols (including TCP). My
assertion is that if you don't need all that complexity you can save a
lot by not using it.
> One of the key features of TCP is congestion control. As a network
> scales, the performance characteristics of a protocol change
> significantly from when they operate in a vacuum. As Hans mentioned
> earlier, the early internet was severely hampered by congestion; as a
> result, TCP congestion control was introduced and overall throughput
> increased dramatically.
> Considering that Comcast is doing this stuff as a result of
> congestion, and that bandwidth usage is only likely to increase, do
> you think moving one of the primary uses of bandwidth to a protocol
> that doesn't do congestion control is a good idea?
I certainly never said it was a good idea. In fact I was very clear
about not endorsing a new protocol. Yours and Hans' point regarding
congestion is valid.
Oh gosh, suddenly it has become clear to be that the Internet is not a
truck, it's a series of tubes!
More information about the PLUG