From owner-freebsd-net Fri Nov 30 7: 1:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu (web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu [134.129.125.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB37137B422 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tinguely@localhost) by web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) id fAUF1L146802; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:01:21 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from tinguely) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:01:21 -0600 (CST) From: mark tinguely Message-Id: <200111301501.fAUF1L146802@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> To: jlemon@flugsvamp.com, rizzo@aciri.org Subject: Re: Does 4.4 FreeBSD kernel supports TCP simultaneous open? Cc: cfliu@realtek.com.tw, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20011129083005.C19821@iguana.aciri.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 10:05:34AM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:03:04PM +0800, ¼B¾JÂ× wrote: > > Thanks...I know where my problem is now...It's indeed a duplicate SYN. > > > > By the way, the tcp_input function is so long and large and there are > > several goto statements which make reading the code even more difficult. Is > > this intened to be like this? Even with Steven's TCP/IP Vol.2, it took me > > three whole days to draw a Visio flow chart of this function. Has anybody > > ever considered of reorganizing this module? > > I don't believe so; the code was originally designned to avoid function > calls, and is essentially a couple of large switch statements. The flow > pretty much mirrors the original RFC, and shouldn't be too hard to follow. want to make the process harder by adding Early Congestion Notification, Duplicate Selective Acknologment, Rate Halfing congestion control? Of course add [Adaptive] Random Early Detection in the input queues. Heck if we are asking for a heculian effort, I might as well pile up the requests. Eventually these features will be needed to keep the TCP stack competitive. The Pittsburgh Supercompter Center's Rate-Halfing, SAK (not DSAK), ECN code looks even more complex (with all the ifdefs, etc) than the FreeBSD code, and I did not remeber seeing the changes for IPv6. Too bad there are not companies throwing money around to fund a good rewrite...of course there is some competative advatange to do so only for themselves. time to go back to (my) reality... --mark tinguely. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message