On 16. jul. 2015, at 15.04, Brian Trammell i...@trammell.ch wrote:
hi Michael,
...inline...
On 16 Jul 2015, at 13:23, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote:
snip
Ideally, I think, then one would use a common term for Nagle(-like)
bundling for TCP and SCTP.
Agreed, we actually
Hi Michael,
[Karen ] TCP maps the received soft destination unreachable ICMPs to
ENETUNREACH or EHOSTUNREACH pending errors on socket.
OK. FreeBSD provides EHOSTUNREACH instead of ETIMEDOUT for TCP.
It doesn't support ENETUNREACH. I don't think we do this in SCTP...
[Karen ] Yes. We do this
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 7:49 PM
To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen; taps@ietf.org
Cc: to...@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-06.txt
Hi, Karen,
On 7/16/2015 12:27 AM, Karen Elisabeth
Hi, Kasren,
[Michael]:
For SCTP we allow for that Nagle is disabled on some streams (streams
with high scheduling priority) and not on others. This is done exactly
for this purpose.
[Joe]:
Sure, but that's also why it doesn't make sense for TCP.
[Karen ] Yes and then also why Nagle off for
