From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-12-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-088-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.88]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608722E00B9 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scan-11-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-11-ewr.local [10.0.141.229]) by mail-12-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1ECB9320AB for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:34:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 194.25.30.7 Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by mail-12-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D77932053 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:34:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from he111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.22]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 17 Mar 2011 09:34:45 +0100 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.5.70]) by HE111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:34:45 +0100 From: To: Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:34:44 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Bloat] Random idea in reaction to all the discussion of TCP flavours - timestamps? Thread-Index: AcvkLEy6E1i9/osFSKqzZynYt26sMQAUQtsg Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D0170A82ACE@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4D7F4121.40307@freedesktop.org> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D01708ED2A4@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <0D064802-2668-4FB7-A0BB-8F717DD4CAF8@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0D064802-2668-4FB7-A0BB-8F717DD4CAF8@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Random idea in reaction to all the discussion of TCP flavours - timestamps? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:34:57 -0000 > [RfC 791 vs RfC 1812 notion of TTL] I'm aware that it is impossible to implement without complex hardware suppo= rt but didn't know that the simpler interpretation got the IETF's blessing.= So the question how a TCP implementations could profit from observing RfC = 791-style TTLs remains hypothetical. Wolfgang