From: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RACK not getting disabled
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:55:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170918215522.GE28186@strugglingcoder.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK6E8=eu+1ywBfpAM34seZDKVc-ep5HBuz9fQRuzoaX9BWqeJA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]
On 09/18/17 at 02:46P, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:29 PM, hiren panchasara
> <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> wrote:
> > On 09/18/17 at 02:18P, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 13:14 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote:
> >> > Hi all, I am trying to disable rack to see 3dupacks in action during
> >> > loss-detection but based on the pcap, I see that it's still trigger
> >> > loss-recovery on the first SACK (as if RACK is still enabled/active).
> just to be clear: 3-dupack (aka RFC3517) is still enabled with RACK
> enabled. I am experimenting a patch set to disable 3-dupack approach
> completely.
So any incoming packet undergoes both checks right now to decide whether
to mark it lost based on 3-dupacks (and eventually rfc6675) and also
rack? Any insights into how they are working together would be great.
Also whichever scheme detects loss first can kick connection into
loss-recovery, right?
Thanks for the clarification, Yuchung.
Cheers,
Hiren
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 603 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-18 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-18 20:14 RACK not getting disabled hiren panchasara
2017-09-18 21:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-09-18 21:29 ` hiren panchasara
2017-09-18 21:45 ` hiren panchasara
2017-09-18 21:46 ` Yuchung Cheng
2017-09-18 21:55 ` hiren panchasara [this message]
2017-09-18 22:05 ` Yuchung Cheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170918215522.GE28186@strugglingcoder.info \
--to=hiren@strugglingcoder.info \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ycheng@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.