nanog mailing list archives

Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS


From: Roger Bohn <Rbohn () ucsd edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:25:54 -0700

OK, I will bite.  What is wrong with this comparison of UDP with TCP?  As
far as I can see the only error is that it implies incorrectly that UDP
traffic is not affected by congestion.  But it is quite valid in the
statement that UDP will tend to crowd out TCP.  (Except for short TCP
transmissions for which congestion control does not have time to take
effect.)  Per megabyte of traffic, UDP will tend to cause more delay to
other traffic stream than will  TCP.  What am I overlooking?

Roger Bohn

P.S. Remember the flap 6 months ago when EUNet basically tried to ban
CuSeeMe for exactly this reason.

At 6:39 PM -0500 8/28/96, Jeremy Porter wrote:
stuff omitted

Under the section "Dirty Secret" "One dirty little secret is that most
phone calls and videoconferences ram their way past data transmissions
by using a bully of a communications method called UDP.  Unlike the more
polite Transmission Control Protocol, TCP, which drops back
when it detects congestion, UDP continues at full speed, elbowing
ahead of TCP traffic. Yet UDP customers aren't paying anything extra for
their fast lane".

Sigh, you should see the section on peering.  Its worse.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Current thread: