David S. Miller wrote:
From: Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:10:59 -0800
Didn't Jesse say something about the 2.4 stack being "ok" wrt
growing the window beyond 32767 bytes? 2.4 has had lots of exposure
right? Isn't that something of an existence proof that the issue
with older DOS TCP stacks is today a non-issue?
Like I said, send me the patch that disables the 32768 limit
when we see any of the TCP extensions for high performance,
such as timestamps, negotiated successfully.
My point (perhaps not as well expressed as the one on the top of my head :) was
that if 2.4 is "OK" with extending the window beyond 32767 without adding
additional semantics on those options, why should 2.6 need to?
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
