Subject: Re: perhaps time to check our TCP against spec?
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 04/06/1998 22:01:39
On "Mon, 06 Apr 1998 21:27:43 -0700", Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
>On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 19:05:53 -0700
> Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> > Yes, that, and that merely RFC-conformant hosts (or NetBSD hosts
> > without the more aggressive ACK changes) would only be ACKing2*MSS.
> > Which could be a heck of a lot more than twice the actual `MSS'
> > derived from the interface.
>NetBSD does not ACK every 2*rxMSS. It ACKs every two segments received,
>regardless of size.
Right. that's the ``more aggressive ACK'' policy.
Was that too hard to follow.
And, as I said, that's a nonstandard. You can't argue it will be
applied elsewhere, like in the scenario I posted just before:
--FDDI ring A---
-------------------------- Ethernet ---- router R
--FDDI ring B---
Unless you get NetBSD's nonstandard more-aggressive acking into the
IETF standards track. Which might not be a bad idea, if people deploy
ideas like in_maxmtu in situations like the one above.
Where, if things break as I think they do, it suggests the in_maxmtu
thing really has not been suifficently well thought-out.
> > Is that in 1.3.1 or not?
>If he "just committed" it, obviously it's not.
So, are you still saying ``where's the problem?'' and that
I need to get a clue?