[e2e] Why do we need TCP flow control (rwnd)?
detlef.bosau at web.de
Mon Jun 30 07:42:18 PDT 2008
Michael Scharf wrote:
> Instead of dropping arriving packets or not sending acks, the receiver
> could also send an ack with ECN marking (assuming ECN usage is
ECN marks can get lost.
In addition: How many data may follow the first dropped packet?
When the receiver is fed up, why shouldn't he simply tell the sender
instead of seeing it waste network capacity for useless retransmits?
And rwnd is _not_ lost - because it is part of any acknowledgement. When
rwnd is lost, the whole ACK is lost, this causing the sender to stop.
> This would also throttle the sender, but not require a
> retransmission. To my understanding, ECN marking would not cause all
> these problems.
As I said: What makes "ICN" (implicit congestion notificatin, i.e. by
missing ACK) preferable over "ECN" is: Loss cannot get lost.
> Thus, a receiver running out of buffer space could just use ECN
> instead of shrinking rwnd.
And what is the propper reaction at the sender's side? rwnd my be shrunk
only temporarily for some reason.
So, this may perhaps not even throttle the sender.
ECN causes at least one congestion recovery action per "round", IIRC.
Detlef Bosau Mail: detlef.bosau at web.de
Galileistrasse 30 Web: http://www.detlef-bosau.de
70565 Stuttgart Skype: detlef.bosau
Mobile: +49 172 681 9937
More information about the end2end-interest