At Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:56:06 +0000,
Kentaro A. Kurahone wrote:
>
> If my reading of the spec is correct this only really applies in cases
> where L > 1*SMSS.  As it stands right now, I'm using L=1*SMSS, so
> behavior durring slow start will either be identical to, or more
> conservative than the traditional algorithm. 

Yes, I re-read the RFC and it makes sense now.

> With that said, it may be
> beneficial to provide the option for using L=2*SMSS and have a sysctl
> for that.

Indeed that would be benefical. As long as we don't use this limit
during slow start as the spec says.

Thanks.