Re: [Tsvwg] Meaning of path failure (was re SCTP Timestamps)

Caitlin Bestler wrote:
...
> But it strikes me that you can go too far in the opposite
> direction. When a given L2 hop is significantly more likely
> to have bursty transmission errors than the Internet as
> a whole, I really think we need to question whether those
> problems should be solved on and end-to-end basis.
> 
> That is especially so if there is a suggestion that the
> end-to-end algorithms need to adjust because they react
> incorrectly to bursty noise on one hop.

I *think* we are in agreement here :-) 

SCTP CC (as well that of TCP) is designed as an end-to-end mechanism.
Therefore, I'd think any tweak on this end-to-end mechanism will by
definition have an end-to-end impact through the entire pipe. So, if we
can really devise a particular tweak that is "just right" to address the
particular noise/burst pattern of one hop in the pipe, in all the
likelihood, this tweak will be suboptimal or even adversely impact the
other hops in the pipe. And this would not be good.

regards,
-Qiaobing

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg