IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] alternate IW proposal

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 18 November 2010 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708383A68A4 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:07:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3dDegvrCxfB8 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FF03A6834 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAIJ7tuL014999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CE5798B.3010000@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:07:55 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mallman@icir.org
References: <20101118180051.9DD3A2532223@lawyers.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101118180051.9DD3A2532223@lawyers.icir.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] alternate IW proposal
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:07:59 -0000

On 11/18/2010 10:00 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
>
> Mark:
>>     - TCP will react to problems in the initial window.  It will.  It will
>>       figure itself out of it within a connection.
>
> Joe:
>> TCP does NOT react to problems in the IW. It keeps using the same IW
>> for every connection, banging its head against the wall continually.
>
> Joe, please read what I wrote.  Please in particular note the last three
> words.  You are not replying to what I said.  My statement is right.

"Within a connection" is true.

That's not the case I consider important, and not the case I have been 
arguing. Please re-read what I posted.

> Your reaction that "TCP does NOT react to problems in the IW" is wrong.
> (Yes, sometimes it happens.)

TCP uses the same IW over and over. If it's wrong - if every connection 
loses 5 of the first 10 packets sent - TCP *does not learn to do 
anything different for the next **new** connection*.

We agree on this, I think. My point, all along, is that it is *this* 
issue that is of concern.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email