[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:23:50 -0700 (PDT) David Miller > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: "#ZHOU BIN#" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:30:48 +0800 >> >>> Yes, I agree. Actually the main contribution of TCP Veno is not in >>> this AI phase. No matter the ABC is added or not, TCP Veno can >>> always improve the performance over wireless networks, according to >>> our tests. >> >> It seems to me that the wireless issue is seperate from congestion >> control. >> >> The key is to identify "true loss" due to overflow of intermediate >> router queues, vs. "false loss" which is due to temporary radio >> signal interference. > > Is it really possible to tell the two apart.
Loss due to "true congestion" as opposed to loss due to radio signal interference (true loss, but falsely inferred to be congestion) is actually very possible, at L2 and only if the hop experiencing problems is the first or last hop. There are numerous indicators that the link is experiencing link-related drops (FEC corrections, signal to noise, etc.). The *desirability* of using this data is debatable, but it most certainly is possible. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
