[e2e] Stupid Question: Why are missing ACKs not considered as indicator for congestion?

Detlef Bosau detlef.bosau at web.de
Thu Feb 1 03:37:07 PST 2007

Lloyd Wood wrote:
> At Wednesday 31/01/2007 20:23 +0000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>> its clear we should devise a schmee for disguising data packets as acks
> which is what piggybacking acks on data packets already does.


To my understanding, Jon proposes piggybacking the other way round :-) 
Piggypabkcing data on acks to take the full advantage of ACK-transfer :-)

Cumulative data transfer.... reminds me on code punturcing used with 
some convolutional code ;-)

Ok, ok., I´m going to shut up :-)

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list