Sorry, I am way behind.
> IMO if you want to follow the true spirit of RFC3390 and RFC2581 then
> yes.. you should ONLY use RFC3390 (or 2581) to set your initial
> cwnd.
>
> I am adding Mark Allman on this to get his opinion.. Mark, here
> is your big chance to chime in on something that has had
>>I.e. where we keep past connection state and use that
>>as a reference for the initial cwnd. I asked Mark about
>>this in the past.. and he said that his paper was
>>mis-interpreted and this is incorrect behavior. If you
>>have no connections up to a peer you should not use any
>>past value for t
James Healy wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I.e. where we keep past connection state and use that
as a reference for the initial cwnd. I asked Mark about
this in the past.. and he said that his paper was
mis-interpreted and this is incorrect behavior. If you
have no connec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I.e. where we keep past connection state and use that
> as a reference for the initial cwnd. I asked Mark about
> this in the past.. and he said that his paper was
> mis-interpreted and this is incorrect behavior. If you
> have no connections up to a
James Healy wrote:
This behaviour seems a little odd to us - can anyone shed some light on
it? Our assumption is that the use of the hostcache is designed to
increase performance where appropriate by seeding the initial cwnd based
on past experience.
For this section of code to return a cwnd th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Whoops, we forgot to update the subject of our email. Our previous email
isn't a draft.
James
James Healy wrote:
> We've recently been doing some TCP congestion control research, and have
> written a small logging module for 6.2 that outputs the cwn
