Thu, 15 Sep 88 10:36:29 PDT
>> 1) If the second path was 25% of the speed of the first path then 25% of
>> the packets could be sent that way. [...]
>> if the two end sides were running the Van Jacobsen/Mike Karels code
>> I believe this wouldn't be to much of a problem. [...]
>The first thing (splitting load among routes) would screw up the
>Jacobson/Karels improved TCP completely. They get a big win by
>estimating the variance of the round trip time; using alternating
>routes for different packets would drive this variance way up, causing
>the timeout to be set high, causing long stoppages on lost packets.
I disagree. The first path is four times as fast but has four times as
many packets. The link delay is only 1/4 the second line but the queuing
delay is four times as great. The variation of the delivery times for the
five packets would be less than using a single line. As the queue sizes go
up the variation in the network delay goes up.
I do however agree with your other point, type of service routing could
put the second path to very good use.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:30 GMT