Pei Zhang | 20 Apr 05:43 2014

Call for Papers: ExtremeCom 2014 - The Galápagos Expedition (due in 2 weeks)

Dear Colleagues, 
I would like to bring your attention at the ExtremeCom 2014 submission deadline of
May 4th, 2014



Extreme Conference on Communication and Computing - The Galápagos Expedition

ExtremeCom 2014

11-16 August, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador



Important dates

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

Submission deadline: May 4, 2014

Notification of acceptance: May 26, 2014

Early registration deadline: June 7, 2014

Registration deadline: June 15, 2014

(Continue reading)

Bob Braden | 27 Mar 23:32 2014

A not-end-to-end question


I am pondering a question that is sort of anti-end-to-end. But since I 
set up this list in the first instance, I figure I have the right to 
abuse it ;-)

There is a community of electrical power engineers who are reworking the 
power transmission system, starting by instrumenting it with measurement 
devices called Phasor Measureent Units or PMUs.  A PMU samples the 
electrical state at a particular point ("bus") at O(100) times a second 
, encapsulates the sample in a frame of ~100 bytes, and sends it (in 
general) towards one or more control cemters Each frame carries an 
absolute timestamp, currently using GPS clocks at each PMU.  The frames 
are passed downstream to a data sink, an application program running 
usually in a control center computer.

This PMU data transmission problem requires high availability and 
controlled latency. Just throwing away packets as we commonly do in the 
Internet does not work here.

There are several proposals, eg MPLS, to solve this problem. However, I 
have been pondering the question: isn't this a nearly perfect 
application for Integrated Services and RSVP? Didn't we solve this 
problem more than 15 ears ago?

Is there any difference in principle between streaming audio/video data 
and streaming PMU data?
The major argument against Intserv and RSVP has always been with scaling 
up to Internet sizes. However, the network delivering PMU data will not 
suffer from a scaling problem. The population of PMUs is expected to 
(Continue reading)

J. Pan | 17 Mar 06:52 2014

[ACM IMC 2014] Call for Papers (Due: April 30, 2014)

[please accept our apologies if you receive this message multiple times]

Internet Measurement Conference
November 5-7, 2014
Vancouver, BC

***Important dates***

Paper registration (with abstract):  Apr 30, 2014 (Noon US Pacific Time)
Paper submission:  May 7, 2014 (Noon US Pacific Time)
Notification:  Jul 25, 2014
Camera-ready due:  Sep 5, 2014

***Call for papers***

The Internet Measurement Conference is a highly selective venue for the 
presentation of measurement-based research in data communications.  The 
focus of IMC 2014 will be on papers that either (1) improve the practice of 
measurement or (2) illuminate some facet of an operational network.

IMC takes a broad view of what constitutes an operational network. This view 
includes (but is not limited to):
· the Internet backbone and edge networks (e.g., home networks, cellular 
networks, WLANs)
· data centers and cloud computing infrastructure
· peer-to-peer and content distribution networks
· infrastructure for online social networks
(Continue reading)

Detlef Bosau | 11 Mar 21:04 2014

Re: Just as an idea. Why can't we use hop by hop flow control for TCP?

Am 10.03.2014 09:50, schrieb Roland Bless:
> Hi,
> On 06.03.2014 17:58, Detlef Bosau wrote:
>> I would like to add a question mark here.
>> TCP is no way "only running at the end points" - of course, links and
>> switching nodes along the path are involved and affected.
> They are usually not holding TCP state.

And neither they do in my concept. They would hold flow control state -
in a manner which would reasonably scale up to a huge number of flows.
>> The more I think about it, this appears artificial to me.
> No, look DCCP, for example, provides CC but now flow control, because
> it is unreliable and you don't care whether the receiver must drop
> packets - for real-time applications this is advantageous because
> they can try to catch up.

To my understanding, DCCP takes TCP congestion control and reimplements
this for TCP flows.

So, it basically suffers from the same weaknesses.
>> I wrote this sometimes before: When you think so, your model is:
>> Sender -------------------------Line---------------------- Receiver.
> No, it's not the model I have in mind...but it nevertheless depends
> on the level of abstraction and layer(s) that you are looking into.

It is the model used in the congavoid paper.
(Continue reading)

Joe Touch | 10 Mar 17:34 2014

a note about posts

As a reminder:

All meeting announcements need to be approved in advance. (FYI, this one
was not).

When the primary call for paper or participation is permitted:
      - meeting reminders are NOT permitted
      - sub-meetings of a parent meeting must not post individually

Joe (as list admin)

Jinsong Wu | 10 Mar 08:43 2014

Deadline April 1 CFP – 2014 IEEE Globecom Green Track

Call for papers
Track on Green Communication Systems and Networks
- Selected Areas in
Communications Symposium at IEEE Globecom 2014

Firm submission deadline: April 1, 2014. 
(Unlike recent ICC's and Globecom's,
this is a hard deadline that will not be
EDAS submission web link:

Scope and Motivation:
Track on Green Communication Systems and
Networks in the Selected Areas in Communications Symposium will focus on green
topics and issues relevant to green communications systems and networks. This
track not only addresses
energy relevant green topics but also discusses
other non-energy relevant
green topics. Green information communication
technologies have been
globally recognized as an important
research  field,  discussing energy-
and/or resource-efficient and/or
environment-sustainable communications,
computing, and relevant systems. Research
projects to date have identified
solutions in terms of algorithms and subsystems,
as well as new ideas for
(Continue reading)

Detlef Bosau | 6 Mar 17:58 2014

Re: Just as an idea. Why can't we use hop by hop flow control for TCP?

Am 06.03.2014 13:56, schrieb Roland Bless:
> Hi,
> On 02.03.2014 14:52, Detlef Bosau wrote:
>> I'm curious why I did not yet see a hop by hop flow control flavour for
>> TCP. Do I miss something? For ATM Networks, such approaches have been
>> conducted. I think of a classical window based flow control for TCP.
> Because TCP is only running at the edges and you better avoid
> per flow state in the network.

I would like to add a question mark here.

TCP is no way "only running at the end points" - of course, links and
switching nodes along the path are involved and affected.

Vice versa, these nodes affect a TCP flow.

(I talked too much about wireless networks, btw., what wireless networks
are concerned, there is a general wisdom: You cannot make a silk purse
from a sows ear.  And we cannot solve technological problems by
protocols, neither do protocols overcome technological limitations.
Nevertheless, we must ensure, that things are not worsened by protocols.
But we should be extremely careful, not to run into category errors here.)

>> This would be an alternative to the end to end "congestion control".
> Flow control and congestion control have different objectives:
> flow control tries to prevent overloading the receiver, whereas
> congestion control tries to prevent overloading the network.
> So you better consider them separately.

(Continue reading)

Detlef Bosau | 19 Feb 15:55 2014

Re: Just a very quick remark on system theory Re: Why don't we talk about segments/objects instaead of layers? Re: Lost Layer?

Am 19.02.2014 12:22, schrieb Saverio Mascolo:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Detlef Bosau <detlef.bosau <at>
> <mailto:detlef.bosau <at>>> wrote:
>     And this is particularly true for engineers as they often don't
>     see the
>     "real" system equations but only the Laplace transform.
> laplace transform are equivalent to linear differential equation

Yes. And pigs can fly.

You never read a text book on analysis and the requirements for the
backward transformation to be unique? At least, things are extremele
tricky here.

Nevertheless: Differential equations are not suitable for the Internet,
neither is the Laplace Transform.

It is funny how the reactions are when I only point to what everyone
knows for decades: We worship a religion here.

Detlef Bosau | 19 Feb 09:36 2014

Just a very quick remark on system theory Re: Why don't we talk about segments/objects instaead of layers? Re: Lost Layer?

because I'm out and about to see my dentist. (very adequate for a
networking guy: I will get a bridge.)

We all remember Ethernet. (This funny network with the yellow garden hose.)

And - jamming. Why was jamming necessary? Because of the systems step
response function applied to the first bit of the preamble.
And "Gibbs phenomenon".
So a sending Ethernet card ignores excess voltage on the line for the
first 40 (?) bit in order to ignore a "spurious collision".

Unfortunately, system theory does not really apply here, otherwise we
could eventually solve our energy problems because in the mathematical
abstraction, some voltages and currents in step- or impulse responses
grow beyond all limits.

In the formulae.

Actually, and luckily, some of the voltages and currents are restricted
by the power supply.

When you start with control theory on simple systems - and the literally
station wagon hurtling down the highway (Tanenbaum) runs with ten times
the speed of the light, you may perhaps discover, may, some people don't
ever, understand that models are only an approximation to reality and
perhaps some models are not always helpful.

And with particular respect to networks: State variables in difference
or differential equations are never bounded. In theory, they may grow
beyond all limits. Both for power (infinite storage capacity in bridges,
(Continue reading)

Detlef Bosau | 18 Feb 20:39 2014

Re: Why don't we talk about segments/objects instaead of layers? Re: Lost Layer?

Am 18.02.2014 19:00, schrieb dpreed <at>
> Well, if you compare economics (barely a science, but only when it actually allows data to disconfirm
hypotheses, which almost never happens) with queueing theory and control theory, I cannot refute you.  

You cannot refute queueing theory and control theory. (Listen to
yourself ;-) You quite often do EXACTLY this ;-))

However, the question is whether these two apply to computer networks.

You told us more than once that we have hardly realistic models for user
behaviour. (We know how to model Monsieur Poisson and Andrej Andrejewich
Markov - however, how do we model the rest of the world?) Than all these
theories assume potentially infinite buffers.

And for control theory: If you really want to apply system theory here
(you did not appreciate my thoughts in this direction in some off list
discussions) you are in the need of a model.

No problem: The packets are the "energy": packets on the fly (links) are
"kinetic energy", packets in queues are "power", the state variables are
buffer queues (which are limited in real life) and links (the transport
capacity of which is HIGHLY volatile as we discussed in many details) ,
in addition: Which state variables are to be taken into consideration?
(Of course the links and buffers along the path, unfortunately, this may

VJ even talks about a "Ljapunov function" which is actually ludicrous.
The concept of Ljapunov stability intends wo make a system behave close
to a given trajectory in state space. How do we apply this concept to a
flow where we cannot even agree upon the state variables in charge.
(Continue reading)

Detlef Bosau | 18 Feb 16:54 2014

Re: Why don't we talk about segments/objects instaead of layers? Re: Lost Layer?

Am 18.02.2014 15:50, schrieb dpreed <at>
> First of all, I am well trained in both queueing theory and control theory.  If you want to talk about the
mathematics of optimal control in non-guassian, non-poisson systems that have coupling between
service rate and request rate, I'm your man.  You guys are so far less informed about the fundamental
theory, it's sad.

Obviously not enough.

The whole situation is (extremely well!) comparable to our current
macroeconomics situation - and you are trapped in exactly the same
pitfall as Ben Bernanke, Wolfgang Schäuble, our Iron Lady (AKA "The
Nought"), President Obama and most of the world:

Irving Fishwer was awarded the noble price for the concept of
monetarism. If the money supply is perfect, anything is perfect.
Refined by Milton Friedman: The only important thing is the money
supply, so we must control the money supply.

I think it will take a second world wide crisis in economics until we
eventually understand, that the money supply is simply not the matter of
interest, but the distribution of assets is the very point. I don't 
know whether half of Greece's population must starve to death or whether
Larry Fink must have his teeth replaced by diamonds first, but at the
end of the day, we will understand that any successful control system
requires two inevitable elements:

First a correct system model, second a correct understanding what should
be achieved.

Both failed in both cases, in economy (where the monetaristic syststem
(Continue reading)