[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ns] goodput calculation

To: Michael Welzl <michael@tk.uni-linz.ac.at>
Subject: RE: [ns] goodput calculation
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:46:51 +0100 (BST)
cc: "'Rafal Wielicki'" <rafalw@thenut.eti.pg.gda.pl>, "'ns-users mailing list'" <ns-users@ISI.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <A17BDB85B175D311804E00E07D02A21D276500@conan.tk.uni-linz.ac.at>
Organization: speaking for none
Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-ns-users@ISI.EDU

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Michael Welzl wrote:

> But this is an upper layer problem. Like, if you do FEC (presumably on
> top of UDP instead of TCP in real life - why would anybody want to do that
> on top of TCP?)

the weak TCP checksum. See current discussion ad nauseum on
end2end-interest and IETF tsvwg. But FEC on the link layer would
probably compensate enough...

> Then, if I'm measuring how much a regular TCP agent gets across, I'm
> doing the right thing   :)

you'd better hope so.

L.

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [ns] goodput calculation
  - From: Stephan <chenette@ccs.neu.edu>

References:
- RE: [ns] goodput calculation
  - From: Michael Welzl <michael@tk.uni-linz.ac.at>

Prev by Date: [ns] Question about MIP
Next by Date: [ns] Agent/Multicast/Control
Prev by thread: RE: [ns] goodput calculation
Next by thread: RE: [ns] goodput calculation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread