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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).