I know the folks in question :-) Actually, they'd be nice about it, but say something like:On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Andrew McGregor wrote:You're going to make lots of IETFer's really annoyed by suggesting that :-)I hope not. That was the reason for allowing it to be tuned and for having a default value equal to the existing one.
Well, RFC 2988 says that the present value is too small and should be 1s, although I take it from other discussion that experiment shows 200ms to be OK.
Instead, RFCs 3042 and 3390 present the IETF's preferred approach that has actually made it through the process. But there are lots of drafts in progress, so that isn't the final word, although it is certainly better than tuning down RTO_MAX.
Now, I have no idea if the kernel presently implements the latter two by default (and on a quick look I can't find either in the code). If not, it should. Shouldn't the initial window be a tunable?
SCTP is in 2.5 now. Does that not fit the bill? I admit, I don't know about the reliability, although I guess I'm going to find out as I have cause to use it shortly. Wearing an IETF hat, I'd like to hear about this, as I'm on a bit of a practicality crusade there :-)In a closed network, why not have SOCK_STREAM map to something faster than TCP anyway?Sure, just give me a protocol that: - is reliable - has low latency - comes with the standard kernel and I'll just use it. But you always get only 2 out ot 3... -- Bogdan Costescu
Andrew
-
: 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
