From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jul 2 0:36:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6790415119 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id HAA11523; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:04:31 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199907020504.HAA11523@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: Slow start? To: jlemon@americantv.com (Jonathan Lemon) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:04:30 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: bmah@CA.Sandia.GOV, net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19990701161639.29611@right.PCS> from "Jonathan Lemon" at Jul 1, 99 04:16:20 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 731 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > For a host sending to another host on the same *subnet*, no, the sender > > doesn't go through slow-start. (In BSD-derived TCP stacks.) ... > Yeah, digging around, I just found the relevant subroutine: in_localaddr(). i reported this problem about three years ago i think (but then forgot about it and did not fix...) cheers luigi > I was suprised, since I expected slow start in all cases. While I > can understand why slow start may not be desirable on a "local subnet", > some of this code seems dated. I mean, it still calculates the > netmask as CLASS_A(), CLASS_B(), etc. > -- > Jonathan > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message