|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>, "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net> Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:18:35 -0600 Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com> > This is the part about TCP that I've never understood: why does it > send large numbers of packets back-to-back? This is almost never a > good idea. Because until you congest the network to the point of dropping packets, a host has no idea how much bw is actually available. Exponential rate growith finds this value very quickly. > Hm, I don't see this happening to a usable degree as TCP has no > concept of records. You really want to use fixed size chunks of > information here rather than pretending everything's a stream. A record-oriented, reliable transport would make many protocols much easier to implement. Too bad SCTP hasn't seen wider use. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |