[e2e] Is a non-TCP solution dead?

[Cannara]

Ian, I'm afraid we seem to get too anxious about fitting data to our
experience.  Loss is not always due to 'congestion' -- which, in fact, has
many forms.  Congestion is not alyways a cause of loss.  The .4% I mentioned
was simply a flakey physical interface on a 2xT1 leased telco link to a Cisco
router -- silicon fails now and then.

Alex

Ian Wakeman wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "cannara" == cannara  <cannara at attglobal.net> writes:
> 
>     cannara> Now, add in a 0.4% loss on the path,
> 
> But I thought you were asserting that the network was run by highly
> efficient telco switches and lines, which wouldn't drop traffic.
> Surely this 0.4% loss wouldn't be coming from (gulp) congestion in the
> network?  Which may have been made the loss rate worse by running the
> flows at higher rates, and more importantly, made the loss rate higher
> for everyone else using the bottleneck link?
> 
> cheers
> ian

--
Alex
79xj6L SII (BRG + wires)
86xj6 SIII (Black)
61 Sprite MkII (Red)
Menlo Park, Calif.