From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: rtt metric only for incoming connections? Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:53:38 -0700 Message-ID: <483C58B2.8080100@hp.com> References: <20080521163815.GA5028@sc.homeunix.net> <20080521101053.27db3495@extreme> <20080521114354.31c6807c@extreme> <20080522103610.GB5354@sc.homeunix.net> <20080527114311.2734402b@speedy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephane Chazelas , Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from g5t0007.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.44]:20908 "EHLO g5t0007.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757604AbYE0Sxm (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 14:53:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080527114311.2734402b@speedy> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>Also, it seems we can't lower the initial RTO below the RFC 1122 >>default of 3 seconds. 3 seconds may be appropriate for a host >>for which we don't know how many hops, links, satellites are >>needed to reach it, but what about local/corporate networks >>where it's possible to administratively know the rtt so that it >>can be hardcoded in the routing table. > > > Violating RFC's is not really that useful. Yet the RFC's are not stone tablets, and they often represent a "compromise" between things desirable for the great big internet and those someone with a bounded network might have. > If you have a network dropping SYN packets regularly than there are > worse problems. That is entirely plausible. > Relying on TCP to overcome wireless network problems is not > a good idea. How is it any worse than relying on TCP to overcome network congestion problems?-) rick jones