Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:52:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:52:59 -0500 Received: from home.wiggy.net ([213.84.101.140]:18921 "EHLO mx1.wiggy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:52:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:01:39 +0100 From: Wichert Akkerman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Maciej Soltysiak , netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: ipv6 stack seems to forget to send ACKs Message-ID: <20030108170139.GL22951@wiggy.net> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Maciej Soltysiak , netdev@oss.sgi.com References: <20030108150201.GA30490@wiggy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 941 Lines: 23 Previously Maciej Soltysiak wrote: > I seem to be getting better results than you, i think that it is not an > issue of ipv6 implementation but simply the case of time sensitive > traffic fighting with other Internet traffic over tunnels through ipv4 > networks. Actually, I don't follow this. How could any kind of traffic shaping result in my client not sending ACKs, which is what the tcpdump seems to indicate? I can understand packets being dropped which would result in retransmits, but that is not the case here. Wichert. (usual I'm-no-network-guru-and-might-be-misreading-things disclaimer here) -- Wichert Akkerman http://www.wiggy.net/ A random hacker - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/