See also draft-allman-tcp-sack for another proposal for a fix that won't break old stacks. Also draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg, draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response and many more.
I can't claim to be a TCP expert, but TCP_RTO_MIN can certainly have a different value for IPv6, where I believe millisecond reolution timers are required, so 2ms would be correct.
Unfortuntately, TCP is incredibly subtle. So, the IETF are really conservative about even suggesting modifications to it, because a common and badly behaved stack can cause major disasters in the 'net.
Andrew
--On Thursday, December 12, 2002 20:45:24 -0800 Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com> wrote:
You are looking for "STP" perhaps ? It has a feature of waking all streams retransmits, in between particular machines, when at least one STP frame travels in between the hosts. I can't find it now from my RFC collection. Odd at that.. Neither as a draft. has it been abandoned ?Learn something new every day :). Thanks for the ptr. I'll look it up..> It would be wonderful if we could tune TCP on a per-interface or a > per-route basis (everything public, for a start, considered the > internet, and non-routable networks (10, etc), could be configured > suitably for its environment. (TCP over private LAN - rfc?). Trusting > users would be a big issue.. > > Any thoughts? How stupid is this? Old hat?? More and more of STP ..thanks, Nivedita
- : 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
