Your interpretation of "Adapting link layer for TCP does not
necessarily mean TCP-specific
adaptations. "TCP-unaware" adaptations would be more useful
(these would be unlike the TCP-aware link layer protocols that
have been proposed previously)." is a very good one.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nitin H Vaidya [SMTP:vaidya@cs.tamu.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 7:00 PM
> To: Qaddoura, Emad [RICH2:IP10-M:EXCH]; pilc@lerc.nasa.gov
> Subject: RE: TCP over wireless type links
>
>
> >> From Emad.Qaddoura.emadq@nt.com Mon Dec 14 17:32:19 1998
> >>
> >> My point was, there are so many link layers. These link layers run
> >> other
> >> transport than TCP and TCP would be one of the options. Do ALL of
> >> these
> >> link layers adapt/optimize their setting for TCP or would it be
> >> easier if TCP
> >> does the adaptation?
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree, optimizing both would be the best of all, but
> >> most likely would
> >> not really happen, just my opinion.
> >>
>
>
> I agree with you on this. I do not think making TCP-specific
> changes to the link layer is the best choice (i.e., the link
> layer should not have to know that the packets it is
> transmitting are TCP packets).
>
> Adapting link layer for TCP does not necessarily mean TCP-specific
> adaptations. "TCP-unaware" adaptations would be more useful
> (these would be unlike the TCP-aware link layer protocols that
> have been proposed previously).
>
> TCP-unaware schemes can
> benefit TCP (and potentially other traffic too). To give
> a trivial example, using FEC on a wireless link to reduce
> the error rate may benefit TCP, without the link layer
> being TCP-specific (or TCP-aware).
>
> By the same token, if we develop some interface that specifies
> to the link layer that a given packet should be retransmitted
> at most X times, then the X can be chosen appropriately by the
> upper layers (for instance, for audio, X may be 0,
> for TCP, some non-zero number, and so on).
> Again, to do this, the link layer does not have to TCP-aware.
>
> Regards.
>
> - nitin
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Nitin H Vaidya [SMTP:vaidya@cs.tamu.edu]
> >> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 1:38 PM
> >> > To: Qaddoura, Emad [RICH2:IP10-M:EXCH]; pilc@lerc.nasa.gov
> >> > Subject: Re: TCP over wireless type links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >> From Emad.Qaddoura.emadq@nt.com Mon Dec 14 12:59:42 1998
> >> > ...
> >> > >> It would also be hard to imagine that many link layers will
> adapt to
> >> > >> TCP requirements. It would
> >> > >> seem more of a managable problem to have TCP adapt to
> different
> >> > link
> >> > >> behaviors. Therefore, the
> >> >
> >> > Can you elaborate why it is more manageable to change TCP as
> compared
> >> > to the link layer. What if link layer adaptation is sufficient
> >> > to yield decent performance - should we still adapt TCP instead?
> >> > I like to think not.
> >> > (granted that link layer alone may not yield optimal
> >> > performance in all scenarios, but it would in some).
> >> >
> >> > - nitin
> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:19 EST