You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
With the new design of having explicit path identifiers, do we need a mechanism for issuing and retiring path IDs at all? They seem to be an unnecessary complexity to me.
The simpler design would be to say that if an endpoint is capable of handling N paths simultaneously, it would use path IDs between 0 and N-1 for the lifetime of the connection, regardless of how many times paths are migrated, either voluntary or involuntary.
When a receiver receives packets on a new path, it has to perform path validation and reset CC regardless of if the received packets carry a new path ID or a old one. Therefore, I think there is not much effort in having the complexity of issuing and retiring path IDs within the protocol.
The downside of reusing path IDs is that endpoints have to remember the last packet number it sent / received on paths that become idle. But that cost would likely be smaller than having the cost of maintaining a dynamic list of path IDs that are alive.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
With the new design of having explicit path identifiers, do we need a mechanism for issuing and retiring path IDs at all? They seem to be an unnecessary complexity to me.
The simpler design would be to say that if an endpoint is capable of handling N paths simultaneously, it would use path IDs between 0 and N-1 for the lifetime of the connection, regardless of how many times paths are migrated, either voluntary or involuntary.
When a receiver receives packets on a new path, it has to perform path validation and reset CC regardless of if the received packets carry a new path ID or a old one. Therefore, I think there is not much effort in having the complexity of issuing and retiring path IDs within the protocol.
The downside of reusing path IDs is that endpoints have to remember the last packet number it sent / received on paths that become idle. But that cost would likely be smaller than having the cost of maintaining a dynamic list of path IDs that are alive.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: