IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [conex] Potentially interesting ConEx problem

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 06 March 2013 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20C421F886D for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:31:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8R2KfxcQx+ou for <conex@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F6D21F87E7 for <conex@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:31:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4C3089C; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:31:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425959A; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:31:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:31:26 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH56bmA2b9PYwdCviUvObD9nrBFMiLbNkEDHEowCWtfFdnkCyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1303061929440.378@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAH56bmD5c3KjVxg3gf9utBTQDLQS3HnxjVbpYf1Bby=iOB85bQ@mail.gmail.com> <201303050953.r259rCTS000573@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <CAH56bmAn5MzD8UVAXKEoQf-kWdeyM-08QM9mxUT0pLDyx4xVDA@mail.gmail.com> <354A9577-4AE9-4094-93B8-2778E9B6A80A@cisco.com> <CAH56bmBKsVfo2-2gL6sKAYT18XSrq2N31YEViwp0ZxTSBbWYOQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1303060616540.14991@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAH56bmA2b9PYwdCviUvObD9nrBFMiLbNkEDHEowCWtfFdnkCyQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: ConEx IETF list <conex@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [conex] Potentially interesting ConEx problem
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:31:31 -0000

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Matt Mathis wrote:

> Which is not the same as saying the idea isn't valuable, it is just that 
> TCP itself isn't quite the right place.

Well, I can't personally understand why the end user wouldn't get a better 
experience by TCP knowing that the wifi link is now up again, so it might 
be good to reset the retransmit timers to 1s instead of waiting 60 seconds 
before trying again.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status