W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > September 2000

TCP timeout parameters and wireless (was Re: pilc minutes for IETF 48)

From: James P. Salsman <bovik@best.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200009200607.XAA25948@shell9.ba.best.com>
To: mallman@grc.nasa.gov
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, ietf-mmms@imc.org, ietf@ietf.org, pilc@grc.nasa.gov
Mark,

Thank you for your message:

>... how does the end host figure out which situation (congestion 
> or outage) it is in? 

There are two end hosts.  Only one of them has a good chance of 
knowing, and the other doesn't usually care these days.

I agree that a well-designed signaling method (whether by TCP 
extensions or ICMP extensions) is a good idea, and I am sure 
that will be better-used in the future.

For now, though, in the situation most nets are in, if people 
want services that can be accessed reliably by wireless 
communications, they might want to at least lower their TCP 
maximum retransmition timeout values, consider lowering their 
RTO maximum, read Reiner's comments on the DoCoMo draft:

  http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/pilc/list/archive/0996.html

and have a look at his TCP-Eifel page:

  http://iceberg.cs.berkeley.edu/downloads/tcp-eifel

Now, I wonder which cellphone will be the first to play MIME
audio/mpeg attachments AND have PPP available on a DB-9 RS-232.

Cheers,
James
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 02:08:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:27 GMT