[e2e] Open the floodgate

[Fu Cheng Peng, Franklin]

One possible solution  to solve the loss type distinghishing between
congestion loss and random loss, seeing TCP Veno at JSAC Feb.. 2003, or
at http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/ascpfu/veno.pdf


-Franklin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of 
> Michael Welzl
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:41 PM
> To: Noel Chiappa
> Cc: end2end-interest at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [e2e] Open the floodgate
> 
> 
> >     > a protocol that believes it needs to slow down 
> whenever it sees a
> >     > packet loss.
> > 
> > Look, we all have known for some time that i) TCP can't currently 
> > distinguish between error loss and congestion loss, and ii) slowing 
> > down for an error loss is a mistake.  (In fact, I'm losing horribly 
> > these days because my mail is kept on a host which is on a network 
> > which is losing packets, so I am personally aware of this issue.) 
> > We're not cretins. You don't need to keep repeating it.
> 
> So why don't we have separate header/payload checksums in TCP 
> yet via a header option, as we now have in DCCP?
> 
> (Potential problem: no coverage field for the regular 
> checksum in TCP - so this option would have to redefine the 
> semantics of the TCP header ... oh well - is that the reason?)
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
>