[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun'an Gao) writes:
> There are two annoying incompetence of TCP. One is that TCP does
> not distinguish packet loss caused by network transmission error
> from that caused by network congestion.
But ECN seems to address this issue, and it can work for UDP as well
as TCP.
> This results in an unnecessary reduction in link bandwidth
> utilization, especially in the environment of wireless physical
> links.
One could argue that it's a responsibility of wireless link-layer
protocols to ensure that random loss is rare (say, by employing an
ECC).
> The other is that the unit of TCP sequence number is byte (octet)
> while the the sequence number is only 32 bit wide.
What practical implications does sequence numbers wrap-around have in
foreseeable future? At 10Gbps, sequence number space will last for
3.4s, which seems to be larger than your typical round-trip time of a
hundred or two milliseconds. It seems it could start to be a problem
at 100Gbps speeds, but current trend seems to be to increase the
number of 10Gbps lamdba channels rather than their bandwidth...
--
Stanislav Shalunov http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/
I never let school stand in the way of my education. -- Mark Twain
