David, I am a newbie to the list - and dont know how to to reply on the correct thread - but here goes:- Your objection is spot on. Bit torrent seems to present a real challenge. The definition of a flow need not be the TCP definition of a flow. I am not sure if it will help, but any the queuing discipline and ingress que filter are able to work with any combination of protocol, source port number, source ip, dest port, dest ip as the definition of a flow. This may or may not help. -----Original Message----- From: David Boreham [mailto:david_list@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sun 10/16/2005 12:14 AM To: Stephen Braithwaite Cc: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: FW: Some queueing disciplines that I wrote. Stephen, this sounds interesting. One question : did you address the 'arms race' with file sharing application developers ? What I mean is that giving preference to short flows seems like a fine idea until footorrent or whatever comes along that has the strategy of opening zillions of short-lived connections to a large number of servers. Now all the flows are short and there are no long flows to give lower priority to. Thoughts ? (I did read quickly through your thesis but couldn't see anything on this. Apologies if I missed it). _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
