[e2e] Reacting to corruption based loss

Ian McDonald iam4 at cs.waikato.ac.nz
Wed Jun 29 14:17:29 PDT 2005

Bob Braden wrote:
>   *> 
>   *> Our experience was that for AMPS we knocked the baud rate down as low as
>   *> possible to 4.8K and abandonded the use of TCP/IP altogether as we could
>   *> hit packet rate losses of 40% quite regularly and dropped connections.
>   *> 
>   *> We implemented a protocol on top of UDP where we just used a sliding
>   *> window (from memory about 16) and knocked the packet size to a small
>   *> size (about 100 bytes max) and allowed out of order packets but with a
>   *> timeout retransmission.
>   *> 
> How does this differ from TCP with an MTU of 100 bytes and using SACK?  (ie
> where's the magic?)
> Bob Braden
This was a little while ago and I'm pretty sure the machines didn't have
SACK and we couldn't alter parameters on TCP stack for some parts i.e.
it was easier to write our own protocol. As you say maybe not the best
option today.


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list