Subject: [Tsvwg] TCP's performance in the face of packet reordering

From: "Jeremy Harris [RU-UK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:05:46 +0000 (GMT)

>Ethan Blanton, Mark Allman. On Making TCP More Robust to Packet 
>Reordering. ACM Computer Communication Review, 32(1), January
>2002.
>http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/papers/tcp-reorder-ccr.ps

Wouldn't the use of SACK make most of this moot?

Jeremy				[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:09:48 -0500

> Wouldn't the use of SACK make most of this moot?

I do not follow.  But, my gut reaction is the answer is "no".  I
can't see how SACK solves the problems we were looking at.  And, we
used SACK TCP as the baseline in the paper (in fact, every variant
of TCP we used in the paper included SACK) and it clearly has
problems with reordering (as expected).

allman

---
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: "Jeremy Harris [RU-UK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:17:51 +0000 (GMT)

> problems with reordering (as expected).

I think you were assuming that enough of any ACK rxd, including SACK,
would trigger a "bad decision" - which you then reasonably went on to
consider how to undo.  But having a SACK shouldn't, I think, count
as such.  Am I wrong?  Why were the "bad decisions" being made?

Cheers,
    Jeremy