Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 05:50:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_subr.c tcp_var.h Message-ID: <20040420054638.E27872@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20040420032850.H20848@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200404200633.i3K6XdXn067858@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040420032850.H20848@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > Enhance our RFC1948 implementation to perform better in some pathlogical > > TIME_WAIT recycling cases I was able to generate with http testing tools. > > > > Except in such contrived benchmarking situations, this problem should never > > come up in normal usage... until networks get faster. > > I think that we may have to break away from standard RFC handling and > change the TIME_WAIT code in tcp_input so that it will accept any SYN > packet coming in without regard to the sequence number, forcing the > TIME_WAIT socket to be recycled. It's been a while since I looked at all the RFCs, but can the window scale option be taken into account for this? I'm thinking that if you receive a packet while in TIME_WAIT with the proper window scale + sequence, accept it, otherwise discard. As for initial sequences, make them less dependent on port/address combos. Not sure if this will solve your problem. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040420054638.E27872>