Re: TCP and Loss (inherently lossy nets)

Mike Brescia (brescia@PARK-STREET.BBN.COM)
Tue, 06 Oct 87 20:33:07 -0400

I submit this note from Robert Cole, recently of University College London, in
the hopes that there might be someone (like Carl Sunshine) who may come up
with a citation for the paper mentioned. This seems to be some hint of
argument counter to the reasoning that Greg Lauer described for lossy packet
radio nets. (Robert did assent when I asked him if I could publish his note.)

> From: Robert Cole <rhc>
> Message-Id: <>
> To: > To: brescia@park-street (Mike Brescia)
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 87 8:55:19 BST
> In-Reply-To: Message from "Mike Brescia" of Oct 05, 87 at 8:59 am
> Situation: Bristol Research Centre, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories.
> X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
> Mike,
> I remember a paper from a long while ago by (some permutation of)
> Sunshine, Grossman and Hindley which had (some permutation of)
> "Hop-by-hop and End-to-end" in the title. I remember it discussed a
> number of these issues and concluded that end-to-end was superior to
> hop-by-hop for flow control. I seem to remember that the arguments
> applied to a number of situations so perhaps they also apply to error
> management (which is not too different from flow control).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:34 GMT