From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul 21 14:55:31 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3FA1F37B400; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E989543E31; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.5/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6LLtQCV033665;
	Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.5/8.12.4/Submit) id g6LLtQdq033664;
	Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200207212155.g6LLtQdq033664@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>,
	Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>
Subject: Re: MFC status for retransmit timer min/slop
References:  <20020721165445.K5064-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-hackers.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

    Wow.  I'm flattered.  Everyone so far thinks 200ms will be ok!

    Its up to Jonathan Lemon now.  Jonathan, if you sign off on 200ms 
    for the MFC I'll go with it.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>
:
:
:On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
:>     I believe the basic concept and code is reasonable and the only real
:>     issue is whether to make the default slop 1000ms or 200ms.  I would very
:>     much like to change the default to 200ms in -stable but I will be happy
:>     to MFC the code to -stable with a 1000ms default to begin with, to get
:>     it out of the way, and then persue changing the default (on stable)
:>     to 200ms as a separate issue.  The default should remain 200ms in
:>     -current.
:
:I think that MFCing with 200ms would be best.
:
:Mike "Silby" Silbersack

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message