Subject: [manet] Re: manet digest, Vol 1 #748 - 6 msgs

From: "Nitin H. Vaidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:59:48 -0600 (CST)

>> I am surprised if the RREQ/RREP packets' successes on marginal links
  >> are only occasional.  I am interested to hear more about that. I have
  >> pessimistically assumed that RREQ/RREP discovery frequently yields paths
  >> that carry small RREQ/RREP packets fine, but which perform badly with
  >> longish TCP segments.

You can improve the odds by padding the RREQ/RREP packets to make the size
comparable with TCP packets. This is not a perfect solution either,
since not all packets are large (e.g., ACKs), so it might make sense
to use one route for TCP data and another for ACKs. Need more refined
information on link quality though. TCP ACKs are cumulative, so that can
tolerate greater losses (once the TCP window builds up).

You mentioned OSPF style protocol -- that won't be sufficient if
you consider impact of route failure on TCP. Need some additional
mechanism to let TCP recover quickly after route repair (since route
repair may take a while with strictly proactive protocols).

- nitin

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