[e2e] Stupid Question: Why are missing ACKs not considered as indicator for congestion?
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Feb 1 11:26:20 PST 2007
David Borman wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 12:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> They need to represent 'real time'; the offset is irrelevant (except for
>> PAWS, as you note), but it needs to be incremented in a realistic way:
>> The timestamp value to be sent in TSval is to be obtained from a
>> (virtual) clock that we call the "timestamp clock". Its values
>> must be at least approximately proportional to real time, in order
>> to measure actual RTT.
>> I don't see how they could represent different scales and be compliant
>> with current spec, although, as you hint, the scale could be kept on a
>> per connection basis, but that would be off-spec.
> The key point of this part of the RFC is "in order to measure actual
> If an implementor chooses to implement a mapping scheme that obfuscates
> the values that it puts into the Timestamps option, that does not
> violate the the spirit of the RFC as long as the obfuscated values kind
> of look like timestamps, i.e. they do not go backwards over time and go
> up by at least 1 for every wrap of the sequence space so that PAWS isn't
AOK - I guess the devil is in "proportional". The actual ratio can be
kept private, but the trick of "use a table of nonces" doesn't work for
the reasons you note.
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070201/dfe47e11/signature-0001.bin
More information about the end2end-interest