| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: rcv_wnd = init_cwnd*mss |
| From: | Prasanna Meda <pmeda@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:55:48 -0700 |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <DB2C167D8FFDEA45B8FC0B1B75E3EE154A3B08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041028165658.753eee50.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
"David S. Miller" wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:15:48 -0700 > "Meda, Prasanna" <pmeda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Thanks, still it is unclear to me why are we > > downsizing the advertised window(rcv_wnd) to cwnd? > > To defeat disobeying sender, or something like below? > > There is never any reason to advertise a receive window > larger than the initial congestion window of the sender > could ever be. > > Setting it properly like this also makes sure that we do > receive window update events at just the right place as > the sender starts sending us the initial data frames. That makes sense! But are we coping with cwnd increase on sender? Looks rcv rwnd s updated by only 1 pkt at time. Thanks, Prasanna. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] 802.1Q VLAN, Krzysztof Halasa |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 1/12] S2io: cosmetic changes, Ravinandan Arakali |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: rcv_wnd = init_cwnd*mss, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | incoming, Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |