On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Jonas Markussen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 10 Mar 2016, at 01:20, Yuchung Cheng [off-list ref] 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