> On 10 Mar 2016, at 01:20, Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: > > PS. I don't understand how (old) RDB can masquerade the losses by > skipping DUPACKs. Perhaps an example helps. Suppose we send 4 packets > and the last 3 were (s)acked. We perform RDB to send a packet that has > previous 4 payloads + 1 new byte. The sender still gets the loss > information? >
If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re talking about sending 4 packets and the first one is lost? In this case, RDB will not only bundle on the last/new packet but also as it sends packet 2 (which will contain 1+2), packet 3 (1+2+3) and packet 4 (1+2+3+4). So the fact that packet 1 was lost is masqueraded when it is recovered by packet 2 and there won’t be any gap in the SACK window indicating that packet 1 was lost. Best regards, Jonas Markussen
