[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Jan 3 11:04:51 PST 2007

Lachlan Andrew wrote:
> Greetings Joe,
> On 02/01/07, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> The improvements in Reno were MORE conservative than TCP as specified,
>> not less. Being more conservative is always compliant.
> Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I thought that RFC 1122 mandated
> following Jacobson'88, which specifies that specifies that packet
> loss, as indicated by timeout, should result in setting the CWND to
> its initial small value.  I also thought that Reno retransmits before
> timeout (less conservative) and consequently only halves the window
> (less conservative).
> If the changes made transmission slower, why were they adopted?  If
> they made it faster, perhaps I'm misinterpreting "conservative".

Reno came out roughly about the same time as RFC1122; when I say "as
specified", I mean as _specified_ at the time, which was just RFC793 (in
this regard, not including Nagle).

It's worth considering that the Internet of 1990 wasn't what it is today
either. Such experiments had much more limited impact on the
international, commercial, and public community at that time.


Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070103/fdd74f4d/signature.bin

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list