2023-04-14 19:47:38 +0000 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |
2021-06-25 08:42:59 +0000 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2021-05-14 14:46:24 +0000 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |
2021-05-14 14:46:24 +0000 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |
2019-08-05 16:13:24 +0000 | commented question | Experimenting with No SACK I think I misunderstood a concept above; the receiver keeps out-of-order packets in its buffer with or without SACK opti |
2019-08-05 10:29:33 +0000 | asked a question | Experimenting with No SACK Experimenting with No SACK Hello, I tried to disable SACK, just to see how the download of the same ISO file (see my pre |
2019-08-04 21:18:42 +0000 | commented answer | Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission Ok, thanks for the clarifications. Can we say that SACK blocks are a sort of 'pre-acks', both to the receiver and the se |
2019-08-04 19:29:22 +0000 | marked best answer | Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission Hello, I was trying to understand how Fast Retransmission works. I downloaded an ISO image from a remote site and was analyzing the trace: sequence numbers, Dup ACKs, SACK and all that stuff. Lots of fun! I saw how SACK's right edge grows, how another SACK buffer is added in the presence of a new 'TCP segment not captured' to the point where there can only be three buffers, then, when another 'TCP segment not captured' comes, the older seems to be flushed out. Now, I saw the server eventually send the first Fast Retransmission, with the sequence number that the client had been desperately asking for over 200 ms (that's consistent with RTT). So far so good. But I've noticed something that I cannot explain. The client was asking for the segment 19903603-19905043 (1440 bytes); the server finally sent that segment with the first Fast Retransmission, but then the client acknowledged 19915123. That's exactly seven segments more than the ones I expected. The SACK buffer, at that point, contained 21538003-21582643 21527923-21535123 21525043-21526483, so values that are out of range the ones that were acknowledged. Now my question is: where did the client take the seven segments that it acknowledged? Roberto |
2019-08-04 07:44:35 +0000 | commented question | Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission From RFC 2018: The data receiver SHOULD include as many distinct SACK blocks as possible in the SACK option. Note t |
2019-08-04 06:04:00 +0000 | commented question | Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission I have to add that, at the beginning of the Dup ACKs, the segment 19905043-19915123 was tracked in the client's SACK, be |
2019-08-04 05:46:57 +0000 | received badge | ● Editor (source) |
2019-08-04 05:46:57 +0000 | edited question | Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission Hello, I was trying to understand how Fast Retransmission works. I downloaded |
2019-08-04 05:38:20 +0000 | asked a question | Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission Undertanding SACK and Fast Retransmission Hello, I was trying to understand how Fast Retransmission works. I downloaded |
2019-08-02 07:28:00 +0000 | marked best answer | TCP Keep-Alive on Linux - 10 seconds Hello, Just out of curiosity, on a linux box (Ubuntu 18.04) what triggers a TCP Keep-Alive every 10 seconds? The value that I got from /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_intvl is 75 seconds. Thank you in advance. Roberto |
2019-08-02 07:28:00 +0000 | received badge | ● Scholar (source) |
2019-08-02 07:27:36 +0000 | received badge | ● Rapid Responder |
2019-08-02 07:27:36 +0000 | answered a question | TCP Keep-Alive on Linux - 10 seconds While browsing via HTTPS (TLSv1.2) for instance to https://www.theguardian.com. I see occurrences of keepalives from my |
2019-08-01 18:47:46 +0000 | asked a question | TCP Keep-Alive on Linux - 10 seconds TCP Keep-Alive on Linux - 10 seconds Hello, Just out of curiosity, on a linux box (Ubuntu 18.04) what triggers a TCP Kee |