[e2e] TCP Loss Differentiation

Injong Rhee rhee at ncsu.edu
Sun Feb 22 10:52:39 PST 2009

With ECN, of course. But without it, the best thing we can do, i guess, is 
not to trust losses unassociaited with purterbation in delays (.e.g., 
increased RTTs, ack or packet train intervals -- of course with some 
intelligent filtering such as ignoring delays in burst, and so on).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Detlef Bosau" <detlef.bosau at web.de>
To: "end2end-interest list" <end2end-interest at postel.org>
Cc: "Injong Rhee" <rhee at ncsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [e2e] TCP Loss Differentiation

> 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
> -- 
> 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 mailing list