IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Comments on draft-blanton-tcpm-3517bis-01

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Thu, 14 April 2011 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D15E0750 for <tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q6IgMNH8VYIf for <tcpm@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055CEE05F5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.6]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p3E0wITx019244 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:58:18 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1302742698; bh=DfkB8ksOztNdIAuH4K5o0MAV5fA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Content-Type; b=phiqgNrsdMXZspkkN8pPx1C1xicax0dq0tGCsplL2p+gp6x+lm4waJRAR0IYAkKB5 TL386Yj302drlO/L1WUcg==
Received: from gxk19 (gxk19.prod.google.com [10.202.11.19]) by hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p3E0wGXK024839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:58:17 -0700
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so615977gxk.31 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=GpD/S8t4AtzauLo24zNzOmirMB4djYuSThAWmC3Qt2c=; b=R1xe4m5rGGvc3nDNSSDM3BpqpBUwtuMqSvODT8ZspS/oUHc3AdNfiQY6d7G6knikCK WsS7w6DMyVdLNvTAPVxw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=V4zzsigOaPG1sn0K+WAMhkmJHGzVdn0JshH+c7IB+hmImeZNu3JiXn0vu3tjTWnjKr PDjTjN/Eq32EmfbNbaEQ==
Received: by 10.151.63.12 with SMTP id q12mr1075346ybk.275.1302742696102; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.109.8 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110414001709.GD4240@colt>
References: <20110413182449.GA4240@colt> <BANLkTi=c80RgQFdXj=Bx5Gpd3RHQRCX9=Q@mail.gmail.com> <20110413201315.GC4240@colt> <BANLkTinkKp0GFg8_fYN+ESy62_p0WbF52g@mail.gmail.com> <20110414001709.GD4240@colt>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:57:56 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTik190qsrG+faJS=RPXZGUyrM5EOMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Comments on draft-blanton-tcpm-3517bis-01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 14 Apr 2011 00:58:19 -0000

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> Yuchung Cheng spake unto us the following wisdom:
>> Thanks for the clarification. My example assumes SMSS=1460 (sorry for
>> not being clear).
>>
>> AFAIK, Linux (even with fack disabled) triggers the fast-recovery when
>> any 3 packets (of any size) are sacked beyond SND.UNA.
>
> And this is correct behavior, and what 3517/3517bis will both do.
>
Ah that's right. The subtle difference is that Linux IsLost(sn)
returns true if any 3 segments beyond sn are sacked, i.e., the seq# of
these segments need not be discontinuous. Therefore the loss marking
is more aggressive after F-R starts (even with FACK disabled).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email