[e2e] TCP Loss Differentiation

Detlef Bosau detlef.bosau at web.de
Sun Feb 22 09:19:26 PST 2009

Injong Rhee wrote:
> You missed my point. I am commenting on *when we should disregard a
> packet loss for congestion control* in particular. My speculaiton is
> that it might be ok to react to losses only when they are from
> congestion. I am suggesting one way to differentiate congestion losses
> from the other losses (which we don't have clear model for).
> Therefore, instead of trying to explicitly model non-congestion
> losses, just model congestion losses which we understand it a bit
> better and react to them.

This would make sense to me if the proposal were to disregard losses for
congestion control anyway (to put it in a very sharpened form) and
initiate congestion action by valid congestion detection mechanisms,
e.g. ECN. Does this match your idea in a better way?


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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3351 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20090222/993a7529/smime.bin

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list