Re: [TERNLI] Notes from tonight's ad hoc

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 2, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Joe Touch wrote:

>
>
> Aaron Falk wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:56 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
>>
>>>   + Giving a generic signal that *something* has changed and it  
>>> likely
>>>     matters and so the transport should re-init itself (e.g.,  
>>> forget the
>>>     SRTT, RTTVAR, cwnd, ssthresh, MTU value, etc.).
>>
>> Perhaps the signal should be that congestion state or RTT estimate  
>> is no
>> longer valid.  I.e., make the signal have transport semantics.
>
> That is what I was afraid of - that means that the link knows what the
> network is doing, e.g., whether it is using the link for CBR or bursty
> traffic, etc.

Joe-

I agree with you so I must not be making myself clear.  What I mean  
is to select those characteristics of the path which are possibly/ 
generally of interest to transport.  It seems to me as though some of  
those characteristics will be more clearly visible to the network  
(e.g., path), some to the link (or subnetwork, really) (e.g., loss  
rate).

I'm not asserting I have an answer here.  Just probing the problem.

--aaron