Hi Arjuna,
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There is no text in the RFCs that I
know of that recommends this procedure. What the RFCs say is that the rate is
not to be *reduced below* W_init as the result of an idle period. This
doesn't change "min_rate", exactly, as far as that parameter exists. For
instance, while the sender is idle [so X_recv must needs be 0], the
implementation might do something like "X_recv := max(X_recv/2, W_init/2R)" on
every nofeedback timer, rather than the straightforward "X_recv /= 2" common
when the sender is sending. Can you tell us where you got the calculation you
listed below?
Eddie
Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:
If the sender had been idle or datalimited, then the minrate is
calculated as:
If (sender has been idle or data-limited)
min_rate = max(2*X_recv, W_init/R);
Else
min_rate = 2*X_recv;
But I guess we have overlooked the possibility that loss event rate p
could be greater than 0 after an idle or datalimited period. So in the
presence of loss, it may not be wise to assign the minrate to be a
maximum of 2*X_recv and Winit/R..
If that is the case, the I guess we have to add something like this:
If ((p==0) && sender has been idle or data-limited)
min_rate = max(2*X_recv, W_init/R);
Else
min_rate = 2*X_recv;
Am I making sense here?
Regards
Arjuna
