[e2e] Stupid Question: Why are missing ACKs not considered as indicator for congestion?
fred at cisco.com
Tue Jan 30 00:42:44 PST 2007
On Jan 30, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Baruch Even wrote:
> There are cases of asymmetric links that might cause trouble, but that
> will only serve to slow down the payload direction as well since
> are released to the network only when acks come back, so a lost ack
> already slow down the rate of the payload, just not by cutting the
> to half.
actually, one can argue that it speed the payload up, or that it
causes it to burst. If I have octets 10000..20000 outstanding,
receive an ack for 10000-11999, and drop one for 12000-13999, and now
receive an ack indicating that my peer has received "through 15999",
that looks to me like an ack for 12000-15999, and I should send a
burst of that size.
More information about the end2end-interest