[e2e] TCP Loss Differentiation

[David P. Reed]

I don't understand how what I wrote could be interpreted as "a 
congestion-based loss process cannot be modeled or predicted".

I was speaking about *non-congestion-based* "connectivity loss related 
loss process", and I *said* that it is not a single-parameter, 
memoryless loss process.

I said nothing whatsoever about congestion-based loss processes, having 
differentiated carefully the two types of loss (which differentiation 
was what Detlef started this thread with).

Clearly I am not communicating, despite using English and common terms 
from systems modeling mathematics.

Xai Xi wrote:
> are you saying that a congestion-based loss process cannot be modeled or predicted? a tool, badabing, from sigcomm'05, claims to be highly accurate in measuring end-to-end loss processes.
>
> David wrote:
>   
>> A "loss process" would be a mathematically more sound term, because it 
>>     
> does not confuse> the listener into thinking that there is a simplistic, 
> memoryless, one-parameter model that> can be "discovered" by TCP's 
> control algorithms.
>   
>> That said, I was encouraging a dichotomy where the world is far more 
>>     
> complicated: 
>   
>> congestion drops vs. connectivity drops.  One *might* be 
>>     
> able to make much practical 
>   
>> headway by building a model and a theory of 
>>     
> "connectivity drops".
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx
>
>