Re: [Bloat] I feel an urge to update this

[Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>]

On 09/25/2014 10:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> Well, there has been such a thing present in TCP from "The Beginning"
>> though not named as such.  Such a client could always advertise a
>> smaller (initial) receive window...  One which would allow only IW3 or
>> whatever value was appropriate.
>
> I'm sure there are ways to solve this, but my take from the "TCP people"
> was that there was not seen to be any need to do anything else than what
> is done today, ie all TCP connections are self contained and learns
> nothing from each other.

Well, I cannot speak for "TCP people" but I would think that what a 
given TCP connection decides to advertise as its receive window, and 
whether that decision would need/must depend on what other TCP 
connections have seen are separate, but related.

The main point I wished to make was if one did indeed wish to have a 
receiver behind a slow pipe wish to be able to keep a sender up on a 
fast pipe from actually doing IW10, there was no need for any new signal 
flowing from one end to the other, just setting the receive window 
appropriately.  The TCP stack on the slow-connection device could (and 
perhaps should) be configured for things like (initial) receive windows 
with that in mind.

rick jones