Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi Michael and Randall,

thanks for the clarification :-)

..- Hendrik

Zitat von Randall Stewart
<rrs AT cisco.com>:

> Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > Comment in-line.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> >
> > On Aug 30, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Randall Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Tuexen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Hendrik,
> >>> this is a question regarding IETF documents, not regarding the
> >>> sctplib implementation.
> >>> These questions are discussed at the tsvwg mailing list. I'm CCing
> >>> it therefore.
> >>> Comments in-line.
> >>> Best regards
> >>> Michael
> >>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Hendrik Land wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a question regarding the number of miss indications before
> >>>> SCTP enters
> >>>> Fast Retransmit/Recovery. The information in RFC4460 and
> >>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-02 seems to be different.
> >>>>
> >>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-02 states in the second paragraph of 7.2.4
> >>>>
> >>>> "Whenever an endpoint receives a SACK that indicates that some TSNs
> >>>> are missing, it SHOULD wait for 2 further miss indications (via
> >>>> subsequent SACKs for a total of 3 missing reports) on the same TSNs
> >>>> before taking action with regard to Fast Retransmit."
> >>>>
> >>>> The same document states in the end of 7.2.4
> >>>>
> >>>> "The counter increments for each
> >>>> consecutive SACK reporting the TSN hole. After reaching 4 and
> >>>> starting the fast retransmit procedure, the counter resets to 0."
> >>>
> >>> This is an error in draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-02 and Randall will
> >>> fix this,
> >>> I guess... Thanks for catching it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep.. good catch.. I missed this one :-0
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> And RFC 4460 states on p22
> >>>>
> >>>> "Whenever an endpoint receives a SACK that indicates that some TSNs
> >>>> are missing, it SHOULD wait for 3 further miss indications (via
> >>>> subsequent SACKs) on the same TSN(s) before taking action with
> >>>> regard to Fast Retransmit."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> This text is overwritten in section 2.52 of RFC 4460. The new text
> >>> reads:
> >>> Whenever an endpoint receives a SACK that indicates some TSN(s)
> >>> missing, it SHOULD wait for 3 further miss indications (via
> >>> subsequent SACK's) on the same TSN(s) before taking action with
> >>> regard to Fast Retransmit.
> >>>
> >>>> What is the latest word on this, 3 or 4 missing reports before a fast
> >>>> retransmit?
> >>
> >>
> > Arghhhh I copied the "old text". The "next text" says:
> >
> > Whenever an endpoint receives a SACK that indicates that some
> > TSNs are missing, it SHOULD wait for 2 further miss indications
> > (via subsequent SACKs for a total of 3 missing reports) on the
> > same TSNs before taking action with regard to Fast Retransmit.
> >
> > It was my copy and past error in the mail...
>
> I figured that out when I looked at the document :-D
>
> I did fix the error where it said 4 instead of 3 though :-D
>
> R
>
>
> --
> Randall Stewart
> NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc.
> 803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222 (cell)
>

---

• [SCTP-Discussion] problem while testing SUA implementation, Michal Piliszek, 08/29/2006
  • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] problem while testing SUA implementation, Michael Tuexen, 08/29/2006
  • [SCTP-Discussion] Number of miss indications, Hendrik Land, 08/30/2006
    • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Number of miss indications, Michael Tuexen, 08/30/2006
      • Message not available
        • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Number of miss indications, Michael Tuexen, 08/30/2006
          • Message not available
            • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Number of miss indications, Hendrik Land, 08/31/2006

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.