Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-control-00.txt)
Kacheong.Poon@eng.Sun.COM Thu, 13 August 1998 01:31 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-tcp-impl@relay.engr.sgi.com>
From: Kacheong.Poon@eng.Sun.COM
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:31:06 -0700
Reply-To: Kacheong.Poon@eng.Sun.COM
Subject: Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-control-00.txt)
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: Kacheong Poon <Kacheong.Poon@eng.Sun.COM>, David Borman <dab@bsdi.com>, tcp-impl@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, mathis@psc.edu
In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <k2iujx3mw9.fsf@zero.aec.at>
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.902971866.24899.kcpoon@jurassic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-tcp-impl@relay.engr.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1350
Lines: 37
> Most BSD implementation (at least Free/NetBSD) don't have the problem, > because they simply send an ACK every second packet, no matter how big > the packets were (this means BSD will send more acks than linux in some > situations) I just got the latest FreeBSD source. The following part of code has not changed. /* * Compare available window to amount of window * known to peer (as advertised window less * next expected input). If the difference is at least two * max size segments, or at least 50% of the maximum possible * window, then want to send a window update to peer. */ if (win > 0) { /* * "adv" is the amount we can increase the window, * taking into account that we are limited by * TCP_MAXWIN << tp->rcv_scale. */ long adv = min(win, (long)TCP_MAXWIN << tp->rcv_scale) - (tp->rcv_adv - tp->rcv_nxt); if (adv >= (long) (2 * tp->t_maxseg)) goto send; if (2 * adv >= (long) so->so_rcv.sb_hiwat) goto send; } Can you point me to where FreeBSD forces acking every second segment, regardless of the size? K. Poon. kcpoon@eng.sun.com
- revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-contro… Vern Paxson
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Kacheong Poon
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Mark Allman
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Matt Mathis
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… David Borman
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Kacheong Poon
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Andi Kleen
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Andi Kleen
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Andi Kleen
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Kacheong.Poon
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Kevin M. Lahey
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Andi Kleen
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Vern Paxson
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Vern Paxson
- Re: revision RFC 2001 (draft-ietf-tcpimpl-cong-co… Vern Paxson