John Heffner wrote:
David Miller wrote:
However, I can't think of any reason why the cwnd test should not apply.
Care to elaborate here? You can view the FIN special case as an off
by one error in the CWND test, it's not going to melt the internet.
:-)
True, it's not going to melt the internet, but why stop at one when two
would finish the connection even faster? Not sure I buy this argument.
Was there some benchmarking data that was a justification for this in
the first place?
Is the cwnd in the stack byte based, or packet based?
While "all" the RFCs tend to discuss things in terms of byte-based cwnds
and assumptions based on MSSes and such, the underlying principle was/is
a conservation of packets. As David said, a packet is a packet, and if
one were going to be sending a FIN segment, it might as well carry data.
And if one isn't comfortable sending that one last data segment with
the FIN because cwnd wasn't large enough at the time, should the FIN be
sent at that point, even if it is waffer thin?
rick jones
2 cents tossed-in from the peanut gallery
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
