netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.4 tcp very slow under certain circumstances (Re: netdev issues (3c

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.4 tcp very slow under certain circumstances (Re: netdev issues (3c905B))
From: Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:21:07 -0800
Cc: Jordan Mendelson <jordy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ookhoi@xxxxxx, Vibol Hou <vibol@xxxxxxxx>, Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <14996.21701.542448.49413@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from davem@xxxxxxxxxx on Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:52:37PM -0800
References: <HDEBKHLDKIDOBMHPKDDKMEGDEFAA.vibol@xxxxxxxx> <20010221104723.C1714@humilis> <14995.40701.818777.181432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3A9453F4.993A9A74@xxxxxxxxxxx> <14996.21701.542448.49413@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:52:37PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:

> There is no reason my patch should have this effect.
> 
> All of this is what appears to be a bug in Windows TCP header
> compression, if the ID field of the IPv4 header does not change then
> it drops every other packet.
> 
> The change I posted as-is, is unacceptable because it adds unnecessary
> cost to a fast path.  The final change I actually use will likely
> involve using the TCP sequence numbers to calculate an "always
> changing" ID number in the IPv4 headers to placate these broken
> windows machines.

Has such a patch gone in to the kernel yet?

Simon-

[  Stormix Technologies Inc.  ][  NetNation Communications Inc. ]
[       sim@xxxxxxxxxxx       ][       sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx        ]
[ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>