From: "Ian McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:10:37 +1200
> Understand what you are saying. That is why I questioned as 200 msecs > makes no sense on a LAN with < 1 msec RTT. So if the current is > ridiculous and 1000 is even more so, why do we use? Just because that > is how TCP is written I'm guessing. We considered getting rid of the lower bound several times, but didn't want to investigate it fully back then. > I know that in DCCP CCID3 the RTO is 4 x RTT (from memory - it might > be a slight variation) but we ended up putting a minimum on it as you > also face a problem if it fires too frequently (i.e. link is in > usecs). > > I might ask around on research lists and see why this issue has never > been revisited. There is also the argument that on a local lan congestion control stops to make any sense. The problem it that you can't detect what is a local lan, and any config knob to indicate this is an unacceptable hack. Any "congestion" you see on a local high speed lan will be gone before you can react to it, so it's pretty pointless to do anything. - 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
