Matthew Toseland wrote: > Ok. No other protocol does coalesced ack's? It seems an obvious idea, > for it not to be useful requires there to be a good reason not to. It's > more of a problem for us because we have quite big minimum size packets, > but there are other encrypted protocols..
Most protocols don't authenticate the transport layer, so the acks are pretty lightweight. For example TLS/SSL just uses a normal TCP connection - you can forge acks, but you still can't delete TLS records because they're numbered and the connection gets shut down if records time out or arrive out of order. So the worst you can do by forging acks is kill the connection (and even then you need to be on the path between the peers). > What do other protocols do? Why is it not possible to get useful data on > this out of your simulations exactly? It should be possible to get useful data when I get another chance to work on it - I'll compare coalesced acks with non-coalesced acks for a variety of loss and reordering rates. Cheers, Michael
