<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.nsbnpp-diffserv-udptcpaf" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nsbnpp-diffserv-udptcpaf-01">
   <front>
      <title>Study of TCP and UDP Interaction for the AF PHB</title>
      <author initials="B." surname="Nandy" fullname="Dr. Biswajit Nandy">
         <organization>Nortel Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="N." surname="Seddigh" fullname="Nabil Seddigh">
         <organization>Nortel Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="September" day="16" year="1999" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>This informational draft presents results of a study on using
different drop precedence assignments to address fairness issues when
UDP and TCP traffic share the same Assured Forwarding (AF) PHB class.
In particular, six different possible combinations of drop precedence
assignment were explored with two different models of RED parameter
settings. We present results showing that the type of RED model
utilized can play a role in the nature of bandwidth sharing between
TCP and UDP flows. The results also show that with the current four
Class, three Drop Precedence AF specification, complete fairness
between TCP and UDP cannot be completely achieved using separate drop
precedence assignment. This is true for both under-provisioned
networks and over-provisioned networks. Certain drop precedence
mapping schemes are beneficial to TCP while others are beneficial for
UDP.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-nsbnpp-diffserv-udptcpaf-01" />
   
</reference>
