[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-new-auth-00.txt
Stephen Kent writes:
> Larger window sizes are multiples of 32, so the term "arbitrary"
> may be no more appropriate for them as it is for the base size of 32.
> Recall that we chose 32 mostly because of the ability to do efficient
> window management in a 32-bit machine, which is sort of arbitrary, right?
> There is no requirement for a receiver to support anything other than 32,
> so I'm not sure what (non-local) burden is implied if a receiver does
> choose to support bigger windows. However, if the Wg wants to mandate
> support for ONLY a fixed set of window sizes, maybe 32 and 64 would suffice.
I'm curious -- how wide to TCP windows get on a high bandwidth delay
product link?
Perry
Follow-Ups:
References: