Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs.ohiou.edu> Tue, 06 November 2007 20:32 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpV63-0008T6-7X; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:32:27 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IpV61-0008Qm-ID for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:32:25 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpV61-0008Q2-62 for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:32:25 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpV60-0002OV-PP for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:32:25 -0500
Received: from [67.59.55.189] (helo=elb.elitists.net) by psg.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <eblanton@cs.ohiou.edu>) id 1IpV5r-0009j8-46 for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:32:23 +0000
Received: from colt.internal (colt [192.168.33.1]) by elb.elitists.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3A62BE21 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:32:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: by colt.internal (Postfix, from userid 3000) id 2A383283F2; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:32:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:32:12 -0500
From: Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs.ohiou.edu>
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
Message-ID: <20071106203212.GG5881@elb.elitists.net>
Mail-Followup-To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <121882.10140.qm@web31702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4730B50A.1030102@isi.edu> <20071106190845.GC5881@elb.elitists.net> <4730BC89.5000909@isi.edu> <20071106192746.GE5881@elb.elitists.net> <20071106193912.GF5881@elb.elitists.net> <4730C9D6.1020700@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4730C9D6.1020700@cisco.com>
X-GnuPG-Fingerprint: A290 14A8 C682 5C88 AE51 4787 AFD9 00F4 883C 1C14
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Spam-Score: -104.0 (---------------------------------------------------)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1413031374=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Mahesh Jethanandani spake unto us the following wisdom:
> Would we not receive a EWOULDBLOCK if the connection was throttled 
> because of congestion in the network? Under the scenario you describe we 
> would have timed out a connection that was either slow or congested. Is 
> that true?

Yes; however, I agree with Joe (and others) that in the situation you
are *actually* trying to solve, this is not particularly relevant.  If
you are short on resources, the distinction between "not making
progress due to zero window" and "not making progress for some other
reason" does not seem important.  As previously mentioned, zero window
does _not_ indicate a malicious host in any way.

[Snip *24 lines* of signature]

Ethan

-- 
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm