Bruce Lowekamp wrote: > The principle I was trying to apply a few messages ago was that if > loss in the overlay link layer is caused by congestion, and end-to-end > protocols react to loss by backing off, we have the same property as > TCP. Your suggestion that if 802.11 needing reliability implies that > an overlay link protocol only makes sense if you believe that the > overlay link protocol experiences losses that are not due to > congestion. I don't believe that is likely to be true, so 802.11 is a > bad example.
Uh?? In a ring based DHT with 1000 nodes, failure detection time of 1 minute, if peers fail on average every 60 minutes every query has a 1 - (1 - 1 / 60) ^ (log2(1000) / 2) =~ 8% probability to find a failed hop on its way. YMMV, but that's hardly irrelevant, especially if compared to the inherent packet loss rate of 802.11 (which, IIRC, should be less than 10%). -- Ciao, Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
