On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, David Miller wrote:

> From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi>
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:11:47 +0200 (EET)
> > Unfortunately I don't have now permission to publish the time-seq
> > graph about it but I've tried to improve the changelog messages so
> > that you can better understand under which conditions the problem
> > occurs.
> It is indeed extremely unfortunate that you wish to justify a change
> for which you cannot provide the supporting data at all.

Here is the time-seqno graph about the issue:


First the correct CC action (wnd reduction) occurs; then bogus undo 
causes bursting back to the window with which the congestion losses 
occurred earlier; because of the burst, some packets get lost due to 
congestion again.

The sender is actually somewhat lucky here: If only one packet would get 
lost instead of three, the same process would repeat for the next recovery 
(as cumulative ACK to high_seq condition would reoccur).


Reply via email to