lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #19434, Processing of Fast retransmit bug
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #19434: Processing of Fast retransmit bug
Submitter: | Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> | ||
Submitted: | Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:00:31 PM UTC | ||
Category: | TCP | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | kieranm |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Thu 12 Apr 2007 02:56:47 PM UTC, comment #12: |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Thu 12 Apr 2007 02:09:18 PM UTC, comment #11: I have reviewed patch once more.
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Thu 12 Apr 2007 11:01:24 AM UTC, comment #10: Well spotted - thanks.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 11 Apr 2007 04:31:14 PM UTC, comment #9: With your patch we have 3 functions where rtime is modified
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Wed 11 Apr 2007 02:20:39 PM UTC, comment #8: I have a patch for this (attached) but no ability to test it (i) solves the problem and (ii) doesn't break something else. Would anyone be willing to give it a go?
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Thu 29 Mar 2007 07:45:28 AM UTC, comment #7: OK, thanks for pointing that out. I was looking at a different RFC which words things differently. I think I can see a simple way to modify our current behaviour to conform to that, so will take a look at this when I get the chance.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 04:22:40 PM UTC, comment #6: from 2988:
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 02:20:10 PM UTC, comment #5: I don't know of any stack that does it that way - the overhead of maintaining all those timers would be large. Linux does it the way we do for example. It's also the way it is described in the RFC standards, and conforming to that is an important consideration. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 02:12:02 PM UTC, comment #4: Theoreticaly, we should have retransmit timer for each outbound segment that handed down to IP.
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 01:45:18 PM UTC, comment #3: OK, the very slow data rate explains the problem. There is no bug. In 68 minutes the packet in question will be retransmitted. This is just the TCP way of doing things.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 01:21:10 PM UTC, comment #2: As I have wrote, "B" sends data very slow (transfer rate approx. 1 byte/sec).
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:18:28 PM UTC, comment #1: From what you've written, I can't see the bug.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:00:31 PM UTC, original submission:
I resubmit bug from lwip-user mail list (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lwip-users/2006-06/msg00028.html) and answer, that Kieran Mansley wrote.
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 9 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-04-12 | kieranm | Status | In Progress | Fixed | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2007-04-12 | kieranm | Attached File | - | Added lwip_rtime.patch, #12473 | |
2007-04-11 | kieranm | Attached File | - | Added lwip_rtime.patch, #12464 | |
2007-03-29 | kieranm | Status | Invalid | In Progress | |
Assigned to | None | kieranm | |||
Open/Closed | Closed | Open | |||
2007-03-28 | kieranm | Status | None | Invalid | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed |
Powered by Savane 3.13-bb6a.
Corresponding source code
OK, checked in with that additional change.
Thanks for your help!