[tcpm] tcp window size

Marc <gaardiolor@gmail.com> Mon, 20 May 2019 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <gaardiolor@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3624112017A for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dY_RDvjlZNku for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831491201AA for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id a132so9127805qkb.13 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PmAVUyjnXq+2CgfPIb4eyB7LmvxkhgoLLEJH8FPuoQA=; b=Rj2jbCh1pfNMehQTkbtAGYvJx9b05KKKTsrg/7flbxBKYgeF5LrMIKhPn/P/8ZEJpF ZIZT2qe+UjOoPpm/kx5HupmwRtxU9PJ0/PBZEn6jZoAZwHGSkWiHfi2pOn/TC6aur8vB Iy47bAnaMGmtkdMW9HmcN7RJiJSeVbWrqM6dBq7zjVIXz+nv4ROiEJDwdwJNautbUE8X s+xAubZUUf2Zo0sRsv114lZuZ4WwA8TQnVKFShApVG8Jc4coDMtpYxZDXiPt5CBRlaCB W91SNoXK+3ht4A8raQVhZH+TQTA8zkLyG2lF3Y2pfXdJvDrCnEgdjU3ZYNsvot7WRyHO lBhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PmAVUyjnXq+2CgfPIb4eyB7LmvxkhgoLLEJH8FPuoQA=; b=BShIGshDL3QzVn1BWTU8hAbJ1NkKg7zzsP3wqmwWBqGgYQ3aSrRwjbxM3cVS6E8AB6 sDakqUEMk63Oy58TQ9g0OLNbF/4q8YnikLZzwRhHb6O3OUux/COE56QQTWZyl5V/jv95 0tmvP0Y5d2qg4zcsy/IOcc6HuX6wivkPatNojbzjNuz5GX0+dvuYHXwfSAo+U4Z0/fSp lQ/a0TQck+af9zPuHRZQ+8Wa/xvtI2knj3TvKrmPqrddmEKMm1jgZlbfRIuKwPyjyJrL mXXqfaC1b9yy8Y9a84s1qmIM221mUhIfxhVN/yJt85RJEIzmLWs1yPHlAc5n02ZbQWIf Ikpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXmdInRbcHMGy8lZ04L9T+QvmjLk67pRcWWwRFh5oedr7Rnnc5r VJLxyt29wMm3V+m0Eyl40NsAB1RjlQAop0BBRn6sdhCd
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdYn+dpYbFfaF052OvakMibo20JdxUmLtFhfyIYN7WjiCYMhJOUaDDjWnTGYNVo4qP6ZywGUzbjrkxI31dckk=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:8d84:: with SMTP id p126mr20899942qkd.72.1558369415593; Mon, 20 May 2019 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Marc <gaardiolor@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 18:23:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPxJK5CO3HBX=-ajd0=M6hXwdbEPwANheExQZtQeac+J3BwM2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/olfA7rfkx91hEEQZcNMBIjbkPxw>
Subject: [tcpm] tcp window size
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 16:23:38 -0000

Hello experts,

I've been trying to find definitive information about tcp window size
negotiation, and if it exists at all.

Take a browser that downloads a file (receiver) and a webserver (sender). If
- both sender and receiver support window scaling
- the receiver advertises a TCP winsize of 256KB
- the sender advertises a window size of 32KB
- the sender has enough space in its TCP send buffer
(/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem on linux)

How much 'outstanding unacked data' is the sender allowed to have,
32KB or 256KB ?

I can't see any logic for it being limited to the window size of the
sender (32KB), I think it depends on both the receiver winsize and the
sender TCP Send Buffer Size, but I need to be sure.

Reading https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793 also suggests there is no
such thing like window size 'negotiation' and each end of a TCP
connection just advertises its own to indicate how much data it can
receive, independently.

Is that correct ?

Thanks!