Re: R: Kernel bug handling TCP_RTO_MAX?

[Andrew McGregor <andrew@indranet.co.nz>]

Er, wasn't that SCTP?  If so, that's RFC 3309 and many, many drafts.  You 
might also want to look at DCCP (draft-ietf-dccp-*) and the various 
documents from the IETF's PILC group.  There is also a proposal for a new 
TCP-style protocol with a real differential controller, the name of which I 
can't recall right now.

See also draft-allman-tcp-sack for another proposal for a fix that won't 
break old stacks.  Also draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg, 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response and many more.

I can't claim to be a TCP expert, but TCP_RTO_MIN can certainly have a 
different value for IPv6, where I believe millisecond reolution timers are 
required, so 2ms would be correct.

Unfortuntately, TCP is incredibly subtle.  So, the IETF are really 
conservative about even suggesting modifications to it, because a common 
and badly behaved stack can cause major disasters in the 'net.

Andrew

--On Thursday, December 12, 2002 20:45:24 -0800 Nivedita Singhvi 
<niv@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>>   You are looking for "STP" perhaps ?
>>   It has a feature of waking all streams retransmits, in between
>>   particular machines, when at least one STP frame travels in between
>>   the hosts.
>>
>>   I can't find it now from my RFC collection.  Odd at that..
>>   Neither as a draft.  has it been abandoned ?
>
> Learn something new every day :). Thanks for the ptr. I'll
> look it up..
>
>> > It would be wonderful if we could tune TCP on a per-interface or a
>> > per-route basis (everything public, for a start, considered the
>> > internet, and non-routable networks (10, etc), could be configured
>> > suitably for its environment. (TCP over private LAN - rfc?). Trusting
>> > users would be a big issue..
>> >
>> > Any thoughts? How stupid is this? Old hat??
>>
>>   More and more of STP ..
>
> thanks,
> Nivedita