Re: text on use of timestamps for 2.5g3g draft

From: Noritoshi Demizu (demizu@dd.iij4u.or.jp)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2002 - 17:47:12 EST


Andrei,

> The original specification of the timestamp option [5] may contain some
> flaws. An update specification [B93] provides the necessary fixes. Ideas in
> this expired draft appear in all current implementations of [5].

Is the last statement correct?

In your mail on Jan 6, 2002, I thought you mentioned that
Linux follows RFC1323 without the modification of [B93].
NetBSD still checks Last.ACK.sent < SEG.SEQ + SEG.LEN.
FreeBSD does not check SEG.TSval >= TSrecent.
OpenBSD follows the modification of [B93].
I do not know of other implementations and simulators.

Since Linux is used widely, is it better to replace
the word "all" to something like "many" or "some" ?

> [B93] R. T. Braden, TCP Extensions for High Performance: An Update, Internet
> Draft, June 1993. http://www.kohala.com/start/tcplw-extensions.txt

> [5] Jacobson, V., Bdaden, R. and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for
> High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.

Regards,
Noritoshi Demizu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:28 EST