Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden%wolfman.devio.us@localhost> writes: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 08:42:12PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> From: draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-08.txt >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-08.txt >> >> This document proposes to raise the upper bound on TCP's initial >> window (IW) to 10 segments (maximum 14600B). It is patterned after >> and borrows heavily from RFC 3390 [RFC3390] and earlier work in this >> area. Due to lingering concerns about possible side effects to other >> flows sharing the same network bottleneck, some of the >> recommendations are conditional on additional monitoring and >> evaluation. >> >> My memory is that this draft was quite controversial and has not >> achieved Proposed Standard status. >> >> In general, the notion of allowing user tunability  of congestion >> control to do things which are not generally regarded as safe is a bit >> scary. >> >> But I could be off about the IETF status of IW10. > > It seems to be getting a lot of revisions. Other BSDs have also > implemented it. Revisions are not a sign of consensus; they are a sign that the author is revising. (The IETF web site seems to be broken right now; that's perhaps about IPv6.) > Maybe we should try to do the some empirical measurements to see if it has > too many side effects. Sure, but that's network research and would be welcome published or publicized to the tcpm working group. NetBSD is a fine software base to use, but it's not really a NetBSD issue. Empirical measurements are had; the real question is "what if everyone did this". It's clear that one host running a more aggressive transmit algorithm is better for that host and has no global effect. But that's not the right question.
Description: PGP signature