[e2e] Question about RFC 2581

[Michael Welzl]

Mark,

I was just about to write a note that this would probably
require ABC - it resembles Savage's "ACK Division" attack,
but it's unintentional - and that for me, it's a reason
to vote for a strong SHOULD (if not even a MUST?) regarding
usage of ABC with L = at least 1 SMSS. Personally, I'd
like to see: MUST L = 1 SMSS, SHOULD L = 2 SMSS.

It's really a fix, so a MUST for the more conservative case
is worth thinking about IMO.

Dado: thanks for bringing up that interesting issue!

Cheers,
Michael


The very moment I saw 
> > Thus, the more ACK segments, the greater the n and the greater the sum
> > part of the equation. If I derived this right, then the difference is
> > quite significant to me. However, this is the way it should not be
> > implemented, I hope.
> 
> Right.  We are on the same page, I think.
> 
> My own opinion is that congestion avoidance should be implemented using
> byte counting and that 1 SMSS should be added to cwnd after cwnd bytes
> have been ACKed.  That is allowed in the current RFC.  
> 
> In the revision, should this scheme be not only allowed but encouraged?
> I only see advantages (mostly in terms of security) of this, not
> disadvantages.  (The only disadvantage that really comes to mind is that
> a touch more state must be kept... basically how much data has been
> ACKed since we last bumped the cwnd.)
> 
> I'd love to hear opinions on this. 
> 
> allman
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/
> 
> 
> 
>