- From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:48:46 -0400
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- CC: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>, Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>, Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@skype.net>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
On 4/16/2013 9:27 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > On 4/16/13 3:45 AM, Patrick McManus wrote: > >> Part of what you inject is traditional L4 information (what was our >> CWND before) which is much more interesting than a constant, > > Much more interesting. That much we agree on. Whether it is > information or misinformation is the real question. > It's definitely misinformation given the dynamic nature of the CWND variable in TCP. This is not a path property like MTU that can be thought of as relatively static, and it can change on short timescales with high granularity. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 16:49:18 UTC