From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Subject: Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030627213846.V90398@shell.cyberus.ca> References: <20030625.143334.85380461.davem@redhat.com> <20030626035824.D68B62C147@lists.samba.org> <20030625.205941.41631020.davem@redhat.com> <16122.53298.150512.793074@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com> <20030626190407.S87648@shell.cyberus.ca> <16124.11495.374998.153330@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "David S. Miller" , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, paulus@samba.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, fcusack@samba.org Return-path: To: James Carlson In-Reply-To: <16124.11495.374998.153330@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, James Carlson wrote: > Jamal Hadi writes: > > So what about packet being loss? Wouldnt that ensure reordering? > > Please explain. What pattern of loss possibly results in one packet > being inserted in the stream ahead of another? > > Here's loss: 1 2 4 5 6 > > Here's reordering: 1 2 4 3 5 6 > > Loss preserves ordering. To get misordering, you have to > intentionally hold onto a message and reinsert it later. What I've And thats what i was implying. In your above example: 1 2 4 5 6 If the entity above the wire cared about packet 3 there will be a retransmit. so it becomes: 1 2 4 5 6 3 I suppose if you can ensure ordering with a retransmit by having a window of size 1 clocked by ACKs. cheers, jamal