[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070829155106.43cf69eb@freepuppy.rosehill.hemminger.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:51:06 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz, rick.jones2@...com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:13:01 -0700
>
> > There was some discussion about implementing TCP NCR (RFC4653)
> > and Narasimha Reddy said he might have something that could be used.
>
> Although this looks interesting, I'm unsure it will help these
> cell folks. Actually I can't tell for sure until Rick provides
> us with some more details of the exact issue at hand.
>
> NCR seems to deal with when the trigger loss recovery, whereas
> the cell phone network folks aparently want to jack up TCP_RTO_MIN
> so that hard timeout based retranmits are deferred a lot more
> than normal.
>
> And reading NCR some more, we already have something similar in the
> form of Alexey's reordering detection, in fact it handles exactly the
> case NCR supposedly deals with. We do not trigger loss recovery
> strictly on the 3rd duplicate ACK, and we've known about and dealt
> with the reordering issue explicitly for years.
>
Yeah, it looked like another case of BSD RFC writers reinventing
Linux algorithms, but it is worth getting the behaviour standardized
and more widely reviewed.
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists