Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] ECN & PMTU

From: "Denio Mariz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 16:51:04 -0300

Hello,
>
> Jacob Heitz wrote:
>
> > One reason: sending extra packets in the face
> > of congestion will worsen the congestion.
> > Congestion collapse could be a very serious possible
> > consequence of sending extra packets.
>
>          I couldnt get the point of, sending extra packets during
congestion.....
> Say if a Router decides that there will be congestion ( its not in
congestion now...)
> then it decides to set the ECN bit in the IP header of certain packets in
the Queue...
> These packets should reach the receiver endpoint.... then the receiver
will
> send a ACK to the sender to indicate there is a congestion..... Doesnt
this too
> long a process.... ie., anyway a SACK is to be sent from the Receiver to
the
> sender....  In that case why not an ICMP packet from the router to the
sender???

Maybe a simulation could to compare the benefits/drawbacks involved in to
notify the sender that will be a congestion (intermediate router add a
packet to the sender) versus wait for the packet to arrive at receiver and
the receiver to notify the sender via SACK (no packet added, but wait for a
RTT).
Did Anyone knows if this kind of simulation was done ?

Denio.

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg