[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?
From: |
Kieran Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour? |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:41:17 +0100 |
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 15:23 +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> "Pomeroy, Marty" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > The TCP_TMR_INTERVAL is the time the stack should wait for an ACK from
> > my master, right?
> >
> > Yes, before it re-transmits.
>
> Is that so? I would have thought that slow-retransmission depends on
> the connection's RTO (which is normally an order of magnitude slower
> than 250ms!) while fast-retransmission does not depend on timer
> intervals but is triggered by receiving 2 dup-ACKs.
Simon's right. The estimation of the RTO though may be (i) measured in
slow timer ticks; and (ii) potentially much less than 1 slow timer tick.
In these cases the stack will wait for exactly TCP_TMR_INTERVAL. In
cases where the RTO is measured to be more than that it will wait
longer.
Kieran
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Fred39, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Fred39, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Pomeroy, Marty, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?,
Kieran Mansley <=
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Kieran Mansley, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Pomeroy, Marty, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Kieran Mansley, 2012/07/02
- Re: [lwip-users] Re transmission behaviour?, Fred39, 2012/07/03