Well, I'm in an email discussion with someone who seems to bump their TCP
windows quite large, and disable timestamps...
And do they like the resulting data corruption.
Minor nit - potential data corruption, perhaps even probable, but I don't think
they are all that concerned yet - feeling secure in their belief that 2*MSL on a
LAN is rather short indeed, and perhaps even in WANs where using 1GB TCP windows
(although I may have mixed too much together there).
Of course, if we believe that stacks should be smart enough to limit the initial
receive windows (or does a setsockopt() actrually override that?), and grow them
over time based on what the transfer rates might be and the like, perhaps the
stack should have a hard interlock on TCP window >= 65535 and timestamp option
on. No timestamps, no window > 65535 bytes. At present, it seems possible to
have one without the other. Of course, if one is indeed on a "LAN" and _knows_
(somehow, given the existence of remote bridges) that it is a LAN.
rick jones
|