I guess this would just make RTO = srtt + 4*rttvar
huge. I believe Reiner Ludwig has evidence to support
this in the context of GSM, where link latencies are in
the order of several hundred milliseconds (kind of like
your satellite link, except much smaller data rate).
Reiner?
-Venkat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: adfalk@mail.hac.com [mailto:adfalk@mail.hac.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 9:30 AM
> To: Venkat Padmanabhan; karn@homer.ka9q.ampr.org
> Cc: rludwig@cs.berkeley.edu; pilc@lerc.nasa.gov
> Subject: LL ARQ on LD links [was: PILC: prioritization]
>
>
>
> Does anyone have real-life experience running TCP over
> link-level ARQ
> with a long delay (i.e. GEO satellite) link? I'm curious
> about the
> impacts on RTO of ARQ-induced jitter that comes in half-second
> multiples. What about effects of initial RTO settings?
>
> --aaron
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: RE: PILC: prioritization
> Author: karn@homer.ka9q.ampr.org at mime
> Date: 1/26/99 8:21 PM
>
>
>
> Even for radio links where this isn't true, I still feel pretty
> strongly that TCP should not have to be "educated" about
> noise-induced
> errors on wireless links when there exists a much more focused,
> effective and cleanly-layered solution to the problem: link-level ARQ
> and FEC. If the link layer is going to the effort to generate a "link
> level error" message to tell TCP to retransmit, why shouldn't it just
> retransmit the packet itself?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:20 EST