North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: MFS WorldCom/WilTel/LDDS
- From: Roger Bohn
- Date: Wed Aug 28 20:38:31 1996
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?
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:
>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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -