| To: | rick jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:28:38 -0800 |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <86de38db09518ced8865af09cd79c064@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <0525M9211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <420D37A3.6020209@xxxxxx> <20050211170958.17fcde21.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050212143105.GB27456@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <86de38db09518ced8865af09cd79c064@xxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:19:35 -0800 rick jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> wrote: > How is that? Isn't cwnd based on the ACKs the sender receives from the > receiver? ACKs go from sender to receiver, first of all. It is based upon congestion as seen "by receiver", something which is impossible for sender. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, rick jones |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, rick jones |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |