> If you want large windows talk to a host who speaks window scaling,
> this is what it's there for.
And how many internet hosts actually support wscale? I suggest
somebody who can sniff a busy ethernet segment with lots of outbound
connections do something like:
tcpdump -n -s 128 'tcp[13] & 2 != 0 and not src net localnet and not dst net localnet'
and see just how many hosts support wscale.
In my tests, I find a little less than 7% of hosts support wscale.
> Otherwise all bets are off for >32k windows. (I have real life
> experience with the sign extension problems, I did try to enable
> 64k windows without scaling by default once and I hit too many
> machines which wouldn't talk to me properly)
I don't doubt your experience, but I've yet to find a single host
where this doesn't work! What stacks are broken in such a way?
It might be my testing methods here are insufficient.
> It's getting too close to the 2.2.x wire now for these sorts of itty
> bitty things, let's work on the higher priority problems instead so we
> can get a clean stable release out soon.
Fair 'nuf.
> (I'm soon going to be asking people to start reporting TCP performance
> and behavior anomalies to me again, I just submitted a sync-up patch
> to Linus with all my latest networking fixes etc. so when he releases
> a kernel with that stuff in there, fire away)
btw, I'm still seeing funnies with 2.1.112-pre2 and sucky
performance.
Oh, and when I sniff the interface, I get double packets for anything
out-bound - anyone else?
-cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html