| J. Nagle, RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks, January 1984. |
....is full. Let us contrast this implementation to the in band solution. The problems are the following: Multiplexing and demultiplexing two streams may be costly by itself, especially if data is transmitted in small chunks. This is the easiest problem: a solution similar to Nagle s algorithm [5] could offer acceptable performance. The data stream and the stream of control messages are independent: even if no data is sent to one of the communication parties, that party may still receive control messages. For this reason, each party has to constantly read the TCP stream to check for ....
J. Nagle. RFC 896: Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks, Jan. 1984. Status: UNKNOWN.
....and reorder packets) The ability of TCP to adapt to networks of various characteristics and computer systems of various processing power makes TCP an important component in the fast expansion of the global Internet. The original definition of TCP appears in RFC 793 [14] Many researchers [2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 19] have identified problems and weakness of the protocol, and proposed solutions. RFC 1122 [1] updates and supplements the definition; to meet the TCP standard, an implementation must follow both RFC 793 and RFC1122. This workwas supported in part by a fellowship from UniForum. Although RFCs 793 and ....
....hand, if the sender uses a smaller RTO value than the actual packet round trip time (RTT) unnecessary retransmissions occur. Moreover, if the packet round triptime increase is due to network congestion, unnecessary retransmissions make the situation even worse and may lead to congestion collapse [12]. On the other hand, if the sender uses a larger RTO value, a lost packet causes the sender to wait longer than necessary, thus degrading throughput. The calculation of the RTO value originally suggested in RFC 793 is now known to be inadequate and has been replaced. RFC 1122 specifies the new ....
John Nagle. RFC-896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks. Request For Comments, January 1984. Network Information Center.
No context found.
J. Nagle, RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks, January 1984.
No context found.
John Nagle. RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetwork. IETF, January 1984.
No context found.
J. Nagle. RFC 896: Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks, January 1984. Status: INFORMATIONAL. (pp 114, 120, 161)
No context found.
NAGLE, J. RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks (January 1984).
No context found.
John Nagle. RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks. Technical report, Internet Engineering Task Force, 1984.
No context found.
J. Nagle. RFC 896: Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks, January 1984. Status: UNKNOWN.
No context found.
NAGLE, J. RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks (January 1984).
No context found.
NAGLE, J. RFC 896: Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks (January 1984).
No context found.
J. Nagle. RFC 896: Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks, Jan. 1984.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC