Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!CERF
From: CERF@A.ISI.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TCP and Loss (inherently lossy nets)
Message-ID: <[A.ISI.EDU]10-Oct-87.11:28:20.CERF>
Date: Sat, 10-Oct-87 11:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: <[A.ISI.EDU]10-Oct-87.11:28:20.CERF>
Posted: Sat Oct 10 11:28:00 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Oct-87 07:14:59 EDT
References: <brescia@park-street>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 13

Mike,

On a lossy link, it is better to retransmit on the link to cinfine the
amount of retransmission to the link rather than pay the price throughout
the network. One uses end/end retransmission to recover from more cataclysmic
failures (loss of underlying X.25 VC, network partitioning, crash of a
packet switch, etc.).l

On really noisy links, it is better to use forward error correction
because checksums will fail almost every time and retransmission then
is not a good recovery tool.

Vint