On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Reiner Ludwig wrote:
> Phil Karn wrote in replky to Reiner:
>
> > >>What you really want to avoid are the nasty interactions between TCP
> > >>and link/physical layer retransmissions that can occur in certain link
> > >>operating regions.
> >
> > >People often talk about those interactions as if there where so many of
> > >those. What are those interactions you are talking about?
> >
> > >I only know of two such interactions:
> > >(1) spurious timeouts that lead to a go-back-N retransmisison mode in
> > TCP, and
> >
> >A compliant TCP never does go-back-N; it only retransmits the oldest
> >unacked segment. But even this could be a spurious retransmission if the
> >earlier delay was caused by a link layer retransmission.
>
> Please, check out section 3.1 in this paper:
> http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/ccr/archive/2000/jan00/ccr-200001-ludwig.html
>
> A compliant TCP has no other chance but to go into go-back-N after a
> spurious timeout, i.e., a spurious timeout forces TCP into the go-back-N.
even with use of SACK and knowledge of the receiver window state? (Did
I miss a timeout causing the SACK scoreboard to be discarded?)
puzzled,
L.
<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:25 EST