From: Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:48:57 -0800
> I disagree as to whether it is "foolhardy" but regardless, they are > perfectly _legal_ whereas a TCP stack interpreting the window field > as a signed quantity is most certainly _illegal_. So the Linux > stack as it behaves is rewarding explicitly broken stacks at the > expense of stacks that are behaving perfectly legal manner. A lot of things are legal which result in bad performance. And that is exactly the kind of choice these stacks are making. > Unless I've missed an RFC, Window scaling is an _option_ not a requirement. Just like this TCP option, good TCP performance is also optional :-) > I'm not conceding the main point just yet, but would ask if you > agree that seeing either Timestamp or SACK options would also > identify a stack as being one that is not in error interpreting the > window field? That's one possibility. I still think it's foolhardy for thes stacks to behave this way, and it's certainly asking for bad TCP performance. - 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
