3 ms·
Do you have a better explanation to offer because I'd love to learn? Not sure why I deserve a downvote for offering a potential solution when you with 6000 karm
by blackflame7000 10y ago
Do you have a better explanation to offer because I'd love to learn? Not sure why I deserve a downvote for offering a potential solution when you with 6000 karma offer nothing.
- wtallis 10y agoI think the claim was far too broad to actually be entirely true, and the evidence was both narrow and weak. The 1997 paper only shows that certain simulation parameters can produce bad packet loss for UDP traffic. But those parameters are almost all irrelevant to today's Internet: MTU is now 1500B not 512B, TCP congestion control is usually something like CUBIC rather than RENO, buffers are never a mere 16 packets long, and TCP traffic is more often relatively short-lived HTTP connections, not long-running FTP. The paper is just another piece of evidence that TCP synchronization sucks. You are very unlikely to encounter such perfect TCP synchronization on today's Internet, and even if you did, the dynamics of introducing some UDP flows to that situation would be different.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]