| To: | Statux <statux@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: TCP/IP question. |
| From: | Ethan Blanton <eblanton@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:13:02 -0500 |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103060009090.14995-100000@circuit.moureaux.com>; from statux@bigfoot.com on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:12:56AM -0500 |
| Mail-followup-to: | Statux <statux@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <3AA47222.1F94402@candelatech.com> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103060009090.14995-100000@circuit.moureaux.com> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
Statux spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > Once a TCP/IP connection has been established (say via accept and connect),
> > the resulting connection is symetric right?
>
> Not always. There is a lot of asymmetric hardware out there... namely 56K
> modems and ADSL, etc.
Not to mention that the routes themselves could very well be (and are not
unlikely to be) asymmetric if the packets are travelling very far.
Ethan
--
If I've told you once, I've told you once -- and once is all that you needed.
-- The Refreshments, "Carefree"
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: TCP/IP question., Statux |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TCP/IP question., Michael Richardson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: TCP/IP question., Statux |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TCP/IP question., Michael Richardson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |