From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: tune back idle cwnd closing? Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060427.131921.79333703.davem@davemloft.net> References: <444E31D9.1010705@psc.edu> <20060426.144540.39973302.davem@davemloft.net> <445103B5.2090603@psc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: zach.brown@oracle.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:35559 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030220AbWD0UTW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:19:22 -0400 To: jheffner@psc.edu In-Reply-To: <445103B5.2090603@psc.edu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: John Heffner Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:47:33 -0400 > (Most OS's don't do 2861, and it is not a standard.) Are you so sure? Doing cwnd timeout largely predates the congestion window validation work, in fact by several years. In RFC 2581, it mentions Van Jacobson's recommendation of this idle period behavior, as just one example. Your arguments about "all the feedback mechanisms are in place, so not reducing the cwnd after idle doesn't hurt congestion control" could be applied to the packet retransmit timeout handling of the congestion window, and I think that's kind of silly.