From owner-cvs-all Thu Jul 18 6:10:46 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F36437B400; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from warspite.cnchost.com (warspite.concentric.net [207.155.248.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2756043E3B; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:10:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Received: from bitblocks.com (adsl-209-204-185-216.sonic.net [209.204.185.216]) by warspite.cnchost.com id JAA01632; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:10:45 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14] Message-ID: <200207181310.JAA01632@warspite.cnchost.com> To: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Retransmission timeouts (was: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_timer.h) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:18:08 EDT." <200207180318.g6I3I8hj000996@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:10:43 -0700 From: Bakul Shah Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG rfc3042 (Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit) says this on page 2, 2nd para: To prevent spurious retransmissions of segments that are only delayed and not lost, the minimum RTO is conservatively chosen to be 1 second. This rfc was published in Jan 2001 -- not an "extremely old" RFC. More like a teenager on the internet time scale. Any way, the collective wisdom seems to say that 1 sec min RTO is _quite_ reasonable. Shouldn't such a change discussion be carried on in freebsd-net (where people who really know TCP may be paying some attention) instead of here? -- bakul To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message