From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, Henrik Nordstrom <hno@marasystems.com>
Subject: Re: Three way TCP handshake : can we avoid the third packet ?
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:38:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <416B97ED.1090002@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <416B92BC.1010504@cosmosbay.com>
Well... I discovered I can use this trick, with a NODELAY socket :
int defaccept = 1 ;
setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_TCP, TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT, &defaccept, sizeof(int)) ;
connect(sockfd, ...) ;
...
select()/poll()/epoll();
...
send(sockfd);
This way, the third packet (pure ACK) is not sent.
But I suspect this trick could be illegal in next kernel versions ... :(
Eric
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Following this discussion on netdev, sorry to bother you again :)
>
> Currently, linux cannot easily avoids the third packet (ACK only) of TCP
> handshake, for connections initiated from linux side.
>
> The send(socket, data) is denied (EAGAIN) if the socket is in NODELAY
> mode and socket not yet connected (connect() done , but not in
> ESTABLISHED state).
>
> So basically, a daemon willing to avoid the third packet must use one
> thread for each outgoing pending connection, seting the socket in
> blocking mode and blocking in send()/write() syscall. In my case, I
> would need about 1000 threads :(
>
> Could we just delay (say up to 200ms) the ACK packet the tcp stack sends ?
>
> If the application uses send() or write() a short time after the
> established state is notified, then the ACK could be suppressed.
>
> This way, every application could benefit from this.
>
>
> Thank you
> Eric Dumazet
>
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>> I discovered today that some TCP stacks were able to initiate TCP
>>>> sockets with 2 packets "only".
>>>>
>>>> The third packet (ACK packet) is just delayed and integrated into the
>>>> data packet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The TCP standard even allows you to have data in the SYN packet if
>>> you like. There however needs to be an exchange of three packets
>>> before the connection is considered established. The SYN flag is just
>>> like "octet 0" in the data stream of from sending direction. SYN +
>>> data is just that. As having data in the SYN or SYN+ACK packets is
>>> very uncommon not all TCP stacks are prepared to handle this and is
>>> therefore not recommended.
>>>
>>> All should handle a data payload in the ACK packet I think however,
>>> but there may obviously be some odd ones which does not.
>>>
>>>> Is it possible to achieve the same thing with linux 2.4/2.6, for
>>>> connections initiated by us ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at the kernel source... seems to be the case if you simply
>>> initiate a non-blocking connect and then queue some data to be sent
>>> on the connection while the connect is taking place. Testing.. yes
>>> this does work.
>>>
>>> set non-blocking
>>> connect
>>> set blocking
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the hint. But the "set blocking" makes me nervous, since
>> I need to be sure not to block at write()/send() time...
>>
>>> write
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Henrik
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-12 8:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <41504117.9010108@cosmosbay.com>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.61.0409211838390.31157@filer.marasystems.com>
[not found] ` <415136D1.7030600@cosmosbay.com>
2004-10-12 8:15 ` Three way TCP handshake : can we avoid the third packet ? Eric Dumazet
2004-10-12 8:38 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2004-10-12 8:41 ` Henrik Nordstrom
2004-09-21 9:47 Eric Dumazet
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=416B97ED.1090002@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=hno@marasystems.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.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).