Thanks for phrasing the problem in better terms. By "lack of
self-clocking" I had meant ACK spacing not reflecting the fair
share of the bandwidth at the bottleneck. But I guess this is not the
correct usage of the term "self-clocking".
Mukul
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Craig Partridge wrote:
>
> I feel that TCP's self-clocking as illustrated in Van Jacobson's 1988
> paper exists only if bottleneck link is a link of lower capacity (i.e.
> bandwidth) than other links. However, if bottleneck link has higher
> capacity than other links (i.e. the link is bottlenecked because a large
> number of flows are using it simulateneously), there is no self-clocking
> any more.
>
> I don't think it is that simple
>
> Self clocking always occurs -- you inject a packet in response to an ack and
> the ack is telling you when the network has capacity for your new packet.
>
> The issue raised in your note is whether the spacing of the acks reflects the
> available bandwidth at the bottleneck. In most cases the answer is that
> it reflects bandwidth only imperfectly. Ack compression, queueing disciplines,
> etc., all conspire to muddy the spacing.
>
> Craig
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 26 2000 - 17:09:20 EST