On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Jonas Markussen <jona...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > >> On 10 Mar 2016, at 01:20, Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: >> >> PS. I don't understand how (old) RDB can masquerade the losses by >> skipping DUPACKs. Perhaps an example helps. Suppose we send 4 packets >> and the last 3 were (s)acked. We perform RDB to send a packet that has >> previous 4 payloads + 1 new byte. The sender still gets the loss >> information? >> > > If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re talking about sending 4 > packets and the first one is lost? > > In this case, RDB will not only bundle on the last/new packet but also > as it sends packet 2 (which will contain 1+2), packet 3 (1+2+3) > and packet 4 (1+2+3+4). > > So the fact that packet 1 was lost is masqueraded when it is > recovered by packet 2 and there won’t be any gap in the SACK window > indicating that packet 1 was lost. I see. Thanks for the clarification.
So my question is still if thin-stream app has enough inflight to use ack-triggered recovery. i.e., it has to send at least twice within an RTT. Also have you tested this with non-Linux receivers? Thanks. > > Best regards, > Jonas Markussen
