RFC 3522: The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The Eifel detection algorithm allows a TCP sender to detect a posteriori whether it has entered loss recovery unnecessarily. It requires that the TCP Timestamps option defined in RFC 1323 be enabled for a connection. The Eifel detection algorithm makes use of the fact that the TCP Timestamps option eliminates the retransmission ambiguity in TCP. Based on the timestamp of the first acceptable ACK that arrives during loss recovery, it decides whether loss recovery was entered unnecessarily. The Eifel detection algorithm provides a basis for future TCP enhancements. This includes response algorithms to back out of loss recovery by restoring a TCP sender's congestion control state. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3522
- Published
- April 2003
- Authors
- R. Ludwig; M. Meyer
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- wit
- Pages
- 14
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3517A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCPObsoleted
April 2003
- RFC 3540Robust Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with NoncesCurrent
June 2003
- RFC 3649HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion WindowsCurrent
December 2003
- RFC 3390Increasing TCP's Initial WindowCurrent
November 2002
- RFC 3742Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion WindowsCurrent
March 2004
- RFC 3782The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery AlgorithmObsoleted
April 2004
- RFC 3042Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited TransmitCurrent
January 2001
- RFC 2988Computing TCP's Retransmission TimerObsoleted
November 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?