Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

acks are not congestion control -> be careful #478

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 22, 2025
Merged

acks are not congestion control -> be careful #478

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
923cf90
acks are not congestion control -> be careful
mirjak Dec 20, 2024
43dbcc8
suggested wording by Christian
mirjak Jan 10, 2025
365e279
nit. Thanks Christian!
mirjak Jan 17, 2025
6b61060
Update draft-ietf-quic-multipath.md
mirjak Jan 22, 2025
ccb3cc4
linebreak
mirjak Jan 22, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 4 additions & 1 deletion draft-ietf-quic-multipath.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -979,7 +979,10 @@ faster if the scheduling strategy is stable, but besides that
implementations can choose between multiple strategies such as sending
PATH_ACK frames on the path they acknowledge packets, or sending
PATH_ACK frames on the shortest path, which results in shorter control loops
and thus better performance.
and thus better performance. However, since packets that only carry PATH_ACK frames
are not congestion controlled (see {{Section 7 of QUIC-RECOVERY}}),
senders should carefully consider the load induced
by these packets, especially if the capacity is unknown on that path.

mirjak marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
## Retransmissions

Expand Down
Loading