At 23:04 04/11/2013, Andrew Mcgregor wrote: > This seems like valuable work. One question is, can we put in scope > notification that losses are NOT due to congestion?
Speaking for myself, I'm not sure how I would do that. A loss (or mark) due to congestion is pretty simple. The switch knows what it did. To know that a packet was lost for reasons other than congestion, I need to somehow know what packets I should expect, and infer that something that I expected didn't happen. In TCP, we know about data segments because they are enumerated - I know what the next octet sequence number to expect, and it doesn't arrive. Control segments (SYN, ACK, FIN, RST, and so on) are not enumerated in that sense - if my peer sends ten identical acks and nine arrive, I as the receiver have no way to know that. At the link layer, most link protocols in use today (PPP, Ethernet, and so on) do not enumerate packets in flight - they are simply there. I *might* be able to see a burst of noise on the line, but only if it looks like it might be the start of a packet and then doesn't end with the right checksum. Even if I can see it, I have no way to know whether the noise garbled one packet or many. If you want to do some research and come up with a solution, be my guest. But in a standard discussed in 2013... let's not.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
