Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:07:13 -0500 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: gnn@freebsd.org, maillist ifiaas <maillist.ifiaas@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Urel, a TCP option for Unreliable Streaming. Need your help. Message-ID: <457803F1.7040303@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4577D858.4010300@freebsd.org> References: <161d69110612060709n3bf99bd4y47d94b021b8f1d02@mail.gmail.com> <m21wncv66z.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <4577D858.4010300@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Oppermann wrote: > gnn@freebsd.org wrote: > > >> >> How is this different from the recently integrated SCTP? > > > It doesn't try to retransmit at all. A lost segment is lost and > resending it would be pointless for realtime content. On the other > hand you don't want to blast the network at a fixed rate and so > this protocol wants to use a congestion control algorithm to back > off when bandwidth gets scarce. I haven't looked at the details > yet but my initial guess would be that the actual TCP code isn't > the best starting point. TCP is too obsessed with retransmitting > if something got lost. > Andre: Thats true for normal SCTP.. not PR-SCTP.. which is a sender option. In this case you don't get retransmissions.. or get a limited number depending on how you set it up :-) R -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 <or> 803-317-4952 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?457803F1.7040303>