Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:27:48 +0000 (UTC)
Tim S <ts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
However, I do wonder if the OP has considered dumping IP and just
throwing raw ethernet frames around? Hard to say whether it would be
better or not - depends on the hardware setup, but it's worth a
though.
One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't things I suspect.
One could go with direct Ethernet, but then one has to segment
oneself, as well as deal with lost traffic. One does have the
advantage of being able to use one's own retransmission timeouts.
Having doe that though, some months later someone will want to be able
to run the application between two sites, without any bridging
available and then the lack of routing (since we've ditched IP) will
come back to haunt.
Also, with direct Ethernet, there are only so many Ethertypes/SAPs one
can use which may make multiple "connections" a bit difficult. The
author might have to write her own connection multiplex/demultiplex.
rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- From: Tim S
- Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- References:
- Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- From: Francois
- Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- From: Allen McIntosh
- Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- From: Francois
- Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- From: Rick Jones
- Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- From: Tim S
- Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- Prev by Date: Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- Next by Date: Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- Next by thread: Re: Linux TCP - unexpected retransmissions
- Index(es):