netdev - Re: a F-RTO question

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:34:08 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
cc:	Chao Pei <peichao85@...il.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: a F-RTO question

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Li Yu wrote:

> Even, the reason is latter, it also means the netowrk already is
> recovered from temporarily congestion or disordered state, so we also should
> not enter loss state.

There are also other considerations in this btw, some devices are simply 
broken and go to RTO loop increasing the RTOs exponentially if we wouldn't 
force retransmit of the next segment (one of those newly sent segments) 
that isn't strictly mandatory imho. ...We used to do something more 
clever here and avoided that retransmission but learned the hard way that 
there's simply no way around it.

-- 
 i.
--
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