| To: | Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:08:17 -0800 |
| Cc: | rick.jones2@xxxxxx, hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <420D3B17.3040506@us.ibm.com> |
| References: | <0525M9211@server5.heliogroup.fr> <420D37A3.6020209@hp.com> <420D3B17.3040506@us.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:09:11 -0800 Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Er, how is this compliant with 2581 (yes, I know, it's only > a SHOULD, not a MUST) - an ACK should be generated for at > least every second full-sized segment received? It's compliant but stupid. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Rick Jones |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |