[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78983A17-6B0C-4A11-BE0E-A98FE699D1E3@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:45:00 +0000
From: Jonas Markussen <jonassm@....uio.no>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
CC: Bendik Rønning Opstad <bro.devel@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Andreas Petlund <apetlund@...ula.no>,
Carsten Griwodz <griff@...ula.no>,
Pål Halvorsen <paalh@...ula.no>,
Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>,
Kenneth Klette Jonassen <kennetkl@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 0/2] tcp: Redundant Data Bundling (RDB)
> On 10 Mar 2016, at 01:20, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> PS. I don't understand how (old) RDB can masquerade the losses by
> skipping DUPACKs. Perhaps an example helps. Suppose we send 4 packets
> and the last 3 were (s)acked. We perform RDB to send a packet that has
> previous 4 payloads + 1 new byte. The sender still gets the loss
> information?
>
If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re talking about sending 4
packets and the first one is lost?
In this case, RDB will not only bundle on the last/new packet but also
as it sends packet 2 (which will contain 1+2), packet 3 (1+2+3)
and packet 4 (1+2+3+4).
So the fact that packet 1 was lost is masqueraded when it is
recovered by packet 2 and there won’t be any gap in the SACK window
indicating that packet 1 was lost.
Best regards,
Jonas Markussen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists