[e2e] TCP Loss Differentiation
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Wed Feb 11 07:20:07 PST 2009
I don't understand how what I wrote could be interpreted as "a
congestion-based loss process cannot be modeled or predicted".
I was speaking about *non-congestion-based* "connectivity loss related
loss process", and I *said* that it is not a single-parameter,
memoryless loss process.
I said nothing whatsoever about congestion-based loss processes, having
differentiated carefully the two types of loss (which differentiation
was what Detlef started this thread with).
Clearly I am not communicating, despite using English and common terms
from systems modeling mathematics.
Xai Xi wrote:
> are you saying that a congestion-based loss process cannot be modeled or predicted? a tool, badabing, from sigcomm'05, claims to be highly accurate in measuring end-to-end loss processes.
> David wrote:
>> A "loss process" would be a mathematically more sound term, because it
> does not confuse> the listener into thinking that there is a simplistic,
> memoryless, one-parameter model that> can be "discovered" by TCP's
> control algorithms.
>> That said, I was encouraging a dichotomy where the world is far more
>> congestion drops vs. connectivity drops. One *might* be
> able to make much practical
>> headway by building a model and a theory of
> "connectivity drops".
> Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos.
More information about the end2end-interest