[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?
lachlan.andrew at gmail.com
Wed Jan 3 10:38:58 PST 2007
On 02/01/07, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> The improvements in Reno were MORE conservative than TCP as specified,
> not less. Being more conservative is always compliant.
Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I thought that RFC 1122 mandated
following Jacobson'88, which specifies that specifies that packet
loss, as indicated by timeout, should result in setting the CWND to
its initial small value. I also thought that Reno retransmits before
timeout (less conservative) and consequently only halves the window
If the changes made transmission slower, why were they adopted? If
they made it faster, perhaps I'm misinterpreting "conservative".
Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech
1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA
Phone: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603
More information about the end2end-interest