![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> >> The example on page three considers a window of three segments (FWIW, > >> it should probably read "a window of three segments' worth of data", > >> since windows are in bytes not segments). I'm wondering if ACK > >> compression (as required) affects the example. It's worth either > >> fixing the example, or addressing the effect of ACK compression (even > >> if to clarify that there is none) somewhere in the doc. > > > > I think you're talking about duplicate ACKs and not ACK compression > > (ACKs getting squished together in the time domain), right? The > > assumption here is that stacks are following 5681 which says they should > > not use duplicate ACKs if there is a hole in the sequence space. I.e., > > that they should immediately ACK each incoming segment. I'll add a > > quick note. > > I had been thinking of compression (sending an ACK every other > segment), i.e., you have a window of three segments, but you will > receive one ACK quickly, and the second ACK will just stall for some > time (200 ms?). It's like Nagle on the ACK side - would it wait for > some time before sending an ACK for a single segment (i.e., in > anticipation of squishing the next ACK with the pending one). At least > that's what I'm wondering about. Damn... "Joe, let me correct your terminology with some bogus terminology of my own!" Where I wrote "duplicate ACK" I meant "delayed ACK". I.e., what you're describing is not ACK compression, but delayed ACKs. And, it is certainly not duplicate ACKs as I tried to make it out to be. allman
Attachment:
pgpVahzLFqFD8.pgp
Description: PGP signature