Hi Ian,
I am cc'ing the IETF list regarding one point in your recent mail, which I
found a little confusing.
Ian McDonald wrote:
The calculation is based on the work Padhye et al did in this paper -
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/padhye98modeling.html
As it turns out this is based on TCP Reno at that time and modern TCP
variants are more efficient when dealing with loss as can be verified
through iperf but we should implement what the RFC says.
Is this really so?
Sally will correct me when I no doubt misspeak, but I believe the difference
between NewReno and Reno is that NewReno makes it more likely that multiple
losses in a single RTT will be treated as a single loss event, through
modifications to fast recovery.
In DCCP CCID 3 these issues do not exactly arise. The receiver explicitly
reports loss *intervals*. The receiver can, and should, use SACK/NewReno
algorithms to determine those loss intervals.
So it is possible that CCID 3 will send slower than TCP but I don't think this
is the reason. The reason should be investigated.
Eddie
