One nit. If you are following RFC terminology i_tot0 should include non_loss, but in the code i_tot1 does. The code seems correct except for the switching of i_tot0 and i_tot1. Eddie
You're right here and I think this is contributing to much of the confusion as I read through Gerrit's most recent emails. I'm reworking this patch at present and adding quite a few comments. Ian -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz WAND Network Research Group
