Re: [dcp] sequence numbers on resend

"Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Tue, 07 May 2002 17:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18203 for <dcp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:50:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA15144 for dcp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14923; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:49:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14885 for <dcp@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from book.ducksong.com (pool-141-154-200-190.bos.east.verizon.net [141.154.200.190]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18078 for <dcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:49:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mcmanus@localhost) by book.ducksong.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g47Hme701210 for dcp@ietf.org; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:48:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:48:40 -0400
From: "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
To: dcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dcp] sequence numbers on resend
Message-ID: <20020507174840.GA1191@ducksong.com>
References: <20020507153340.GA2453@ducksong.com> <200205071704.g47H4x610034@coyote.icir.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200205071704.g47H4x610034@coyote.icir.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: dcp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dcp-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Datagram Control Protocol <dcp.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dcp@ietf.org

> 
> My first instincts are:
> 
> (1) DCCP-Responses are never retransmitted. If a Response is lost, the side
> that initiated the connection will retransmit the Request eventually.

correlary: t3 needs to be very large. This could lead to some pretty
big tables of timers not associated with real sessions.

> 
> (2) I'm not sure it matters, in practice, whether retransmitted Requests
> have new sequence numbers. Therefore, for consistency, I would choose that
> they would.

I'd argue against it for a few reasons:

  1] the above - using the same ISN would let you use the same
  connection and not have orphaned timers.

  2] (rvcd_ackn == local_isn) has to match on each side to complete
  the handshake.. extending that to (rcvd_ackn is_in
  list_of_local_isns) is an implementation hassle - requiring state
  maintenance for each resend.

  3] least surprise - in TCP a retransmit is a RE-transmit, the same
  TCP level data is simply sent again. this way you only have to worry
  about dups not which one is "right". 



_______________________________________________
dcp mailing list
dcp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcp