![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I just checked the simple user-drive, cli client I wrote and it doesn't retransmit at all (perhaps not the best UI experience).
the issue isn't with retransmissions. If - to use Harald's example - no reply arrives for 70 out of 100 issued requests, this is a pretty strong indication that the server or something on the way to or from the server is congested. In response to such a signal, the request rate should be reduced.
I'd also like to bring up a second, somewhat related issue. Section 3 says:
Each IRIS-LWZ query or response is contained in a single UDP packet. Servers MUST be prepared to accepted packets as large as 4000 octets, and clients MUST NOT send packets larger than 4000 octets.
and Section 4 says
2. If a request is less than or equal to 4000 octets, send it uncompressed.
3. If a request can be compressed to a size less than or equal to 4000 octets, send the request using compression. Otherwise use another transfer protocol.
Sending packets larger than the minimum MTU of ~512 bytes is likely to cause fragmentation, which can significantly reduce transmission efficiency and reliability [1] and cause data corruption [2].
Fragmentation becomes more likely as packets get larger. With packets of 4000 bytes (where does this number come from, anyway?), fragmentation is pretty much guaranteed across most links. If IRIS-LZW messages are expected to be larger than ~512 bytes in general, the use of a transport protocol other than UDP is probably a good idea.
-andy
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.