Re: [Tsvwg] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-00.txt

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Reiner Ludwig wrote:

> I would very much appreciate to get some feedback on this mailing list 
> concening draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-00.txt.

wouldn't D-SACK information make Eifel flag negotiation redundant,
while also allowing simplifying timestamp handling somewhat?

The Eifel algorithm using D-SACK would be an interesting addition to
the approaches your draft outlines; if Eifel flag negotiation fails
but D-SACK info is present, I'd imagine that Eifel could still be made
to work effectively, even without the use of timestamps.

(Given a choice between SACK/D-SACK and echoing timestamps in headers
for small(ish) header sizes, I'd take the SACK, thanks. It just lets
you do more and be more creative at the sender. See RFC2883.)

I think the most valuable part of the flag approach is:

   The receiver SHOULD send an immediate ACK with the Xmit-Echo flag set
   in response to an incoming data segment that has the Xmit flag set.

since then the sender has the chance to demand real path delay without
the arbitrary delayed acknowledgement timer getting in the way at the
receiver, and to compensate for long path delays for e.g. telnet by
setting the flag a lot.

L.

thinks ack delay should increase the longer ack delay is used as
in-order packets come in. (you'd need byte counting, of course.)

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

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