Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 16:23:44 GMT

Yes, Bakul, keeping a central RTT cache per destination is a good idea.
Most good stacks use it already.  I think it was recommended in Host
Requirements circa 1989.

Keeping a per destination cache of Path RTT, Path MTU, and a Quality
measurement was required in my initial IPng Neighbor Discovery design
several years ago, before that was destroyed in the rewrite by committee.


From: Bakul Shah <bakul () torrentnet com>
[Thinking aloud here...]
Perhaps a part of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm can be
factored out in some sort of a `traffic central' module that tries
to give you the best bandwidth/packet loss estimate it has for a
given route provided you keep it updated with what you learn (i.e.
TCP tells it when a packet is lost etc).  A new TCP connection can
then immediately start off with a bigger window (and won't open the
window too wide too quickly).  Multiple connections between two
hosts can avoid what would be largely redundant estimate
computation.  Even a UDP app. can try to benefit from this (such as
for communication where bounded delay is more critical than packet
loss).  Other `traffic conditions' input can also be fed into this
module [perhaps as part of some future routing protocol].  Combining
this `quality' of a route aspect into routing protocols may make
sense in the long run....


WSimpson () UMich edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson () MorningStar com
    Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault