having looked now at both 2861 and the 99 paper it references I see lots
of "may's" "mights" and "belief" but nothing "real world."
the CWV vs non CWV was done against a TCP that did indeed reset cwnd
after an RTT of idle, so it wasn't showing reset at idle versus no reset
at idle. just CWV's less draconian (?) reset than the non CWV stack.
the experimental validation in the 99 paper was still a simulation using
dummynet and a number of buffers rather smaller than what modem banks
were offering at the time, and it was for a modem, rather than any other
sort of link. and when they did use a real modem, the buffering in the
modem bank seems to have made the whole thing moot.
there was nothing about effect on intranets, or high-speed long hauls or
any of that.
what that means wrt having a sysctl to enable/disable functionality
still listed as experimental i'm not sure
rick jones
-
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
