Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

Hagen Paul Pfeifer <> Wed, 09 June 2010 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6062D3A67B3 for <>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.351
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E4KdIYYFVwkY for <>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53283A67A5 for <>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 63201F44129; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 22:33:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:33:15 +0200
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <>
Message-ID: <20100609203315.GC5338@nuttenaction>
References: <> <> <20100609173556.GA5338@nuttenaction> <> <20100609200052.GB5338@nuttenaction> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Key-Id: 98350C22
X-Key-Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22
X-GPG-Key: gpg --recv-keys --keyserver 98350C22
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:33:27 -0000

* | 2010-06-09 21:13:34 [+0100]:

>I've read such papers. They tend not to discuss the initial SYN/ACK handshake
>and the timer related to that (probably because their simulation tools default
>to not simulating SYN/ACK), or consider the implications of TCP slow start with
>long propagation delays.

It is a little bit off-topic, but can you comment on the actual problems of
the initial SYN/ACK handshake and the timer interplay? Linux for example use
the same RTO timer for the initial handshake and the ongoing connection. If
you tune the RTO timer you will also tune it for the initial three way
handshake (this statement is not 100% sure, I hide some petite differences,
but the effect is insignificant). Why differs the handshake so much in your
eyes? And yes, don't trust any simulation models that you have fully
developed by your own. ;-)

>the sensor networks I'm familiar with use IP, but don't use TCP, for
>many of the same underlying reasons.

Yes, the characteristics and problems are nearly the same. The papers I read
("Making TCP/IP Viable for Wireless Sensor Networks", "Hop-by-Hop TCP for
Sensor Networks", ...) are pure academic papers and I personally saw no sensor
network TCP implementation in the wild.