[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes
From: |
Karl Jeacle |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:51:36 +0100 |
On Mon 26 Jul 04, 09:09:03 +0100, K.J. Mansley wrote:
> That is a possibility, and although I don't like dumping the whole
> unacked queue on the unsent queue just in case it's necessary, it would
> solve your problem. My only worry is that it might result (if we're not
> careful) in a large number of segments being put on the network as a
> result of a loss, which is completely the opposite of what the sender
> should be doing.
I don't think a large number of segments can be sent out because we're
in slow start, and the window is therefore tiny. I think there was
some method in the original madness!
> much work, so may have a look later today. Perhaps if I do get
> something coded up you'd be willing to test/debug it for us?
Sure, would be happy to try it out.
Karl
- [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, Karl Jeacle, 2004/07/22
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, K.J. Mansley, 2004/07/23
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, Karl Jeacle, 2004/07/23
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, Karl Jeacle, 2004/07/25
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, K.J. Mansley, 2004/07/26
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes,
Karl Jeacle <=
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, Leon Woestenberg, 2004/07/26
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, K.J. Mansley, 2004/07/26
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, Leon Woestenberg, 2004/07/26
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, Sam Jansen, 2004/07/26
- Re: [lwip-users] Recent tcp_rexmit() changes, Kieran Mansley, 2004/07/27