Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-04.txt

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:26:43 -0700

Pasi -

>The report at 
>http://www.cs.Helsinki.FI/group/iwtcp/papers/f-rto.ps shows the 
>performance numbers resulted from our study, if anyone is interested. 

Thanks, I just read it, and the F-RTO mechanism seems to be quite
useful for avoiding the Go-Back-N behavior after a spurious timeout.
(And it is nice to have a mechanism for this that does not require
the use of timestamps, it seems to me.)

I just had one or two minor comments below.

- Sally

In case 2i, in some cases the sender will only be able to transmit
one new segment instead of two, if the sender is limited by the
receiver's advertised window.  I don't think that this complicates
anything in the F-RTO algorithm, but it would be good to note.

In Figure 4, it would also be nice to see the case where all but
one or two packets in the window of data are dropped.  You would
still get an RTO, and it seems to me that the F-RTO algorithm would
work fine in this case, but it might be good to have an illustration.

Are your Linux modifications publically available?
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Pasi Sarolahti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:17:26 +0300

Hi Sally,

(changed the subject line)

> anything in the F-RTO algorithm, but it would be good to note.

True. That sounds like a good remark on the next version of the 
internet-draft we have under work.

> Are your Linux modifications publically available?

There is a Linux patch made quite a while ago available at
http://www.cs.Helsinki.FI/research/iwtcp/code/frto-linux.tar.gz

the code isn't very beautiful, but should work as written in the paper.

Thanks for the feedback,
- Pasi