Skip to main content

The Eifel Algorithm for TCP

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Author Ludwig Reiner
Last updated 2000-11-20
Replaced by draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


TCP's intertwined error and congestion control is not robust against spurious timeouts nor is it robust against packet re-orderings. A packet that is delayed in the network beyond the expiration of TCP's retransmission timer, is mistaken for a packet loss by a TCP sender. Also, a packet that is re-ordered in the network beyond TCP's duplicate acknowledgment threshold, is eventually mistaken for a packet loss by a TCP sender. Both situations lead to a spurious retransmit of the oldest outstanding segment, and an unnecessary reduction of the congestion window at the sender. Moreover, a spurious timeout forces the sender into a go-back-N retransmission mode leading to spurious retransmits of all outstanding segments.


Ludwig Reiner

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)