TCP-group 1995
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Re: Extended sequence numbers for AX.25
- To: gerry@cs.tamu.edu
- Subject: Re: Extended sequence numbers for AX.25
- From: Phil Karn <karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 15:44:36 -0800
- Cc: pe1chl@wab-tis.rabobank.nl, enge@almaden.ibm.com, rnzll3!gw4pts@relay.nl.net, bdale@gag.com, brian@ucsd.edu, PG@tasma.han.de, kalle@dg8lav.deceiver.sub.org, jan@nasobem.stgt.sub.org, ptaylor@email.meto.govt.uk, martin@gw6hva.demon.co.uk, iw3qok@ljutcp.hamradio.si, Jarkko.Vuori@hut.fi, kohjin@marina.prug.or.jp, k8ka@tomcat.nasa.gov, kwi@lesti.hut.fi, 71635.1174@compuserve.com, henkp@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl, olievier@rullf2.leidenuniv.nl, geertj@ripe.net, robtu@exabyte.com, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
- In-reply-to: <199503171407.IAA07478@photon.cs.tamu.edu> (message from Gerald J C
- Reply-to: karn@qualcomm.com
>rate, number of sequential errors, and number of received bad packets. My
>statistics for ax.25 were consistent with Phil's predictions. TCP/IP fared
>better than ax.25 overall both in speed of completion and error rates,
>especially at larger packet lengths. (Obviously, we didn't do 1500 byte
This isn't surprising since TCP generally reorders out-of-sequence packets
while AX.25 generally discards them. This makes sending more than one packet
per transmission somewhat more worthwhile with TCP than AX.25.
Phil