What‘s the difference between TCP Reno and TCP Tahoe? Can they exist at the same time?

TCP Reno and TCP Tahoe are two variations of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) that implement different congestion control algorithms. Below is a detailed comparison of the two:

Differences Between TCP Reno and TCP Tahoe

Feature	TCP Tahoe	TCP Reno
Congestion Control Mechanism	Tahoe uses a basic congestion control mechanism with three components: Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, and Fast Retransmit.	Reno adds a fourth component, Fast Recovery, in addition to the mechanisms in Tahoe.
Fast Recovery	Not implemented in TCP Tahoe. After a packet loss is detected (via triple duplicate ACKs), Tahoe drops the congestion window (cwnd) to 1 and starts Slow Start.	Implements Fast Recovery: After detecting triple duplicate ACKs, Reno halves the congestion window and avoids Slow Start.
Reaction to Packet Loss	Always enters Slow Start when packet loss is detected (either via timeout or triple duplicate ACKs).	Enters Fast Recovery (if triple duplicate ACKs are received) and avoids Slow Start. If a timeout occurs, it behaves like Tahoe.
Performance	Tahoe is less efficient in high-bandwidth, low-latency networks because it resets to Slow Start more frequently.	Reno is more efficient as it avoids resetting to Slow Start for packet losses detected via triple duplicate ACKs.
Behavior on Timeout	Both Tahoe and Reno reduce the congestion window to 1 and enter Slow Start after a timeout.	Same as Tahoe: on a timeout, Reno also drops the congestion window to 1 and enters Slow Start.

Key Features of TCP Reno’s Fast Recovery

• When triple duplicate ACKs are received, Reno assumes the packet is lost but that the network is not severely congested (since packets are still being delivered).
• Instead of reducing the cwnd to 1 (as in Tahoe), Reno:
  1. Halves the cwnd.
  2. Enters Fast Recovery, where it retransmits the lost packet and continues to send new packets, relying on duplicate ACKs to adjust the congestion window.
  3. Exits Fast Recovery once an ACK acknowledging new data is received, and transitions back to Congestion Avoidance mode.

This makes Reno more efficient in recovering from packet loss without drastically reducing the flow of data.

---

Can TCP Reno and TCP Tahoe Coexist?

Yes, TCP Reno and TCP Tahoe can coexist on the same network. Since these algorithms operate independently at the sender’s side, they do not require any coordination or awareness of each other’s presence. However, they may behave differently in the same network conditions:

• TCP Tahoe flows may experience more significant reductions in throughput because they drop to Slow Start on every packet loss.
• TCP Reno flows may perform better during mild congestion as they avoid Slow Start in case of triple duplicate ACKs.

In mixed environments, TCP Reno generally outperforms Tahoe because of its ability to recover more efficiently from packet losses. However, both implementations still follow the same fundamental principles of TCP (like AIMD, Slow Start, and Congestion Avoidance), so they remain compatible with each other.