Subject: RE: [Simple] MSRP: Flow Control

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 12:15:27 -0400

At 08:39 AM 4/29/2003 -0500, Ben Campbell wrote:
>As I mentioned in a previous message, the primary motivation for message
>switching is connection sharing. While I recognize that we do not have a
>requirements document for this, I think we have had consensus for some
>time that connection sharing is a good thing, for reasons of congestion
>control and effecient use of a scarce resource (number of TCP
>connections) at relays.
>
>Adam has recently pointed out that this may not really help from a
>congestion control viewpoint. If we determine that connection sharing is
>not worth the trouble, then it may make sense to revisit the tunneling
>relay approach.

Subtle question:  Is connection sharing with no congestion, and connection 
sharing with congestion the same thing?

For relay-to-relay, a relay could open up new connections any time an 
existing TCP connection is full and queuing starts to take place (>1), and 
does not automatically tear down a connection when the queue is empty (for 
at least some time-out period).

There may a middle ground between "every IM session is its own TCP 
connection" and "all IM sessions share a TCP connection".

Mike

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 May 2003 11:22:26 -0500

> at least some time-out period).

Certainly, the connection sharing model does not require relays to use
only one connection. They could create additional connections based on
some local policy, as long as no given session had messages split
between the connections, as this would play havoc with delivery order.

However, the proposal under discussion is removing _any_ TCP connection
sharing.