Re: [Bloat] sigcomm wifi

[Alex Burr <ajb44.geo@yahoo.com>]

> On Monday, August 25, 2014 9:34 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> > 
> On 25. aug. 2014, at 10:19, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> 
>>      What about framing the retransmissions not in number but rather in 
> time? For example the maximum of either time to transmit a few (say 3?) packet 
> at the current data rate (or maybe one rate lower than current to allow 
> setoriating signal quality) or 20ms (pulled out of thin air, would need some 
> research). The first should make sure we actually retransmit to overcome 
> glitches, and the second should make sure that RTT does not increase to 
> dramatically. This basically assumes that for reasonable interactive traffic we 
> only have a given RTT budget and should make sure not to overspend ;)
> 
> That would be VERY good I think!!!!

I agree.

A third reason for link-layer retransmission is to prevent glitches in video/audio
streams which aren't run over TCP and won't retransmit themselves. (This was basically
the reason link-layer retransmission got added to DSL, because telco's  were keen that
their bundled TV didn't have glitches - in this case, due to noise, rather than collisions).
This is also very consistent with the idea of only retransmitting within a short period.

Alex