netdev - Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070829.161528.38309258.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	rick.jones2@...com
Cc:	ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable

From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:06:27 -0700

> I belive the biggest component comes from link-layer retransmissions. 
> There can also be some short outtages thanks to signal blocking, 
> tunnels, people with big hats and whatnot that the link-layer 
> retransmissions are trying to address.  The three seconds seems to be a 
> value that gives the certainty that 99 times out of 10 the segment was 
> indeed lost.
> 
> The trace I've been sent shows clean RTTs ranging from ~200 milliseconds 
> to ~7000 milliseconds.

Thanks for the info.

It's pretty easy to generate examples where we might have some sockets
talking over interfaces on such a network and others which are not.
Therefore, if we do this, a per-route metric is probably the best bet.

Ilpo, I'm also very interested to see what you think of all of this
:-)
-
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