>Shouldn't we much rather promote the use of the ECN scheme instead?
Probably.
>Right, that's why ISP's should (and some do) configure their dial-up lines
>to not allocate more than 3-4 packets per modem. For the same reason
>wireless hosts which usually don't have to many flows active and sending at
>the same time should also not have a much bigger interface buffer.
I know this is a common practice, but it's always bothered me. I just
don't like the notion of a node deliberately dropping a packet when it
doesn't really have to. It means periodic packet drops and end-to-end
retransmissions whenever the congestion window exceeds the buffer
limit. These may not affect the throughput of the link in question,
but it does affect the efficiency of the rest of the Internet. People
complain about the added load of ICMP Source Quench messages, but
surely the occasional small SQ message is a lot less overhead than the
big data packet that has to be retransmitted because of an intentional drop
at a bottleneck link.
>That's how it also works in GSM. So you must also see the problems with VJ
>header compression in IS-95. Is there a user configurable parameter to
>change the max. number of retransmissions for the IS95-RLP like in GSM? An
No. It's a fixed parameter. See my last message for an analysis of why it
just doesn't make much difference to go larger.
Some differences between CDMA and GSM: CDMA uses stronger FEC, and
automatic power control. This tends to produce a sharp threshold
effect: either the link works almost perfectly (e.g., 1-2% FER) or not
at all (e.g., when no more transmitter power is available).
Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:19 EST