So earlier, I had mentioned that it’s really not desirable to have ARQ (automatic repeat request) on a link carrying TCP datagrams. My comment is based on this observation:
In that article, the discussion is about one TCP connection being tunnelled over another TCP connection. Basically it comes down to the lower layer buffering and re-sending the TCP datagrams just as the upper layer gives up on hearing a reply and re-sends its own attempt.
Now, end-to-end ACKs have been done on long chains of AX.25 networks before. It’s generally accepted to be an unreliable mechanism. UDP for sure can benefit, but then many protocols that use UDP already do their own handling of lost messages. CoAP for instance does its own ARQ, as does TFTP.
Gerald Wagenknecht, Markus Anwander and Torsten Braun discuss some of the impacts of this on a 802.15.4 network in their thesis “Hop-to-Hop Reliability in IP-based Wireless Sensor Networks – a Cross-Layer Approach“. In this, they talk about a variant of TCP called TSS: TCP Support for Sensor Networks. This was discussed at depth in a thesis by Adam Dunkels, “Towards TCP/IP for Wireless Sensor Networks“.
This latter document, was apparently the inspiration for 6LoWPAN. Section 4.4.3 discusses the approaches to handling ARQ in TCP. Section 9.6 goes into further detail on how ARQ might be handled elsewhere in the network.
Thankfully in our case, it’s only the network that’s constrained, the nodes themselves will be no smaller than a Raspberry Pi which would have held its own against the PC that Adam Dunkels used to write that thesis!
In short, it looks as if just routing IP packets is not going to cut it, we need to actually handle the TCP side of things as well. As for other protocols like CoAP, I guess the answer is be patient. The timeout settings defined in RFC-7252 are usually tuneable, and it may be desirable to back those off just a little for use over AX.25.