[tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at loss?
hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> Tue, 26 April 2016 00:20 UTC
Return-Path: <hiren@strugglingcoder.info>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1B412D09C for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NVo-2frY9JDY for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.strugglingcoder.info (strugglingcoder.info [104.236.146.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A618712B00A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.1.1.3]) (Authenticated sender: hiren@strugglingcoder.info) by mail.strugglingcoder.info (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 187BB170C8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:20:40 -0700
From: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info>
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160426002040.GL33164@strugglingcoder.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qo7zVO9a9OQ5oQtr"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/515zSdL2uD77ezV4-MDnoshDNbI>
Subject: [tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at loss?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:20:42 -0000
In case of Fast Recovery, what should cwnd be when the loss is realized on 3rd dupack? In RFC6675 5. Algorithm Details, (4.2) says: "ssthresh = cwnd = (FlightSize / 2) The congestion window (cwnd) and slow start threshold (ssthresh) are reduced to half of FlightSize per [RFC5681]." But looking at RFC5681 3.2. Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery, (3) says: "The lost segment starting at SND.UNA MUST be retransmitted and cwnd set to ssthresh plus 3*SMSS." 'per [RFC5681]' seems wrong in RFC6675. Or am I missing or mis-interpreting something? Cheers, Hiren
- [tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at loss? hiren panchasara
- Re: [tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at … Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at … Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at … Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at … hiren panchasara
- Re: [tcpm] Discrepancy in guidance about cwnd at … hiren panchasara