From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 15 15:26:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23732 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:26:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA23643 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:25:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcs@znep.com) Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id QAA11518; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:25:38 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA15352; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:24:20 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:24:20 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko To: Luigi Rizzo cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: delayed ACKs (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Erm... unless you are referring to the feature of not doing delayed acks for non-fullsized segments. See the TCP_ACK_HACK ifdef in tcp_input.c On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > I found this on the tcp-impl list... can someone comment if the feature > > is still there in -current (or it ever was) ? > > Yes, as far as I know it is, however I don't have a box to try it on. > > This was the subject of the short "why 100 byte TCP segments?" thread > on hackers on Sta. or so starting with > > > FreeBSD isn't alone in this by any means and you don't run into it that > often, but when you do it is a real pain. > >