Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!park-street!brescia
From: brescia@park-street (Mike Brescia)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TCP and Loss (inherently lossy nets)
Message-ID: <8710051315.AA12684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 5-Oct-87 09:15:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8710051315.AA12684
Posted: Mon Oct  5 09:15:40 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Oct-87 01:48:23 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 15

Can anyone from Packet Radio or SURAN projects speak to the retransmission
attempts done on single hops to improve reliability (and increase delay
average and variance)?  Is hop-by-hop retransmission better than end-to-end
retransmission or not?  Why?  Should TCP rely on hop-by-hop reliability and
never retransmit?  (Before you answer that, recall that the vast majority of
lost packets are dropped in gateways because of congestion.)

Mike

     <msg from craig@nnsc.nsf.net to narten@purdue.edu>

     I'm interested in situations in which loss is inherent -- that
     is, you will get loss, no matter what your TCP does.  Packet radios
     suffering from noise or jamming are good examples.  Loss caused by
     congestion is a different problem.