One nit. If you are following RFC terminology i_tot0 should include non_loss,
but in the code i_tot1 does. The code seems correct except for the switching
of i_tot0 and i_tot1.
Eddie
You're right here and I think this is contributing to much of the
confusion as I read through Gerrit's most recent emails.
I'm reworking this patch at present and adding quite a few comments.
Ian
--
Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4
Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
WAND Network Research Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
