[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth
From: |
Kieran Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth |
Date: |
Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:05:45 +0000 |
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 18:14 +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> Kieran Mansley wrote:
> > You can probably get away with leaving TCP_WND alone
> > if you're acting purely as a sender of packets,
> In fact, I think you won't, as TCP_WND is not only the announced receive
> window size but serves as a limit for transmit window, too.
I thought that sounded familiar and had a look for it in the source
before posting, but couldn't find where this happened. Can you remind
me?
Thanks
Kieran
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, (continued)
- [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/04
- [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/04
- Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05
- Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Kieran Mansley, 2009/03/05
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, address@hidden, 2009/03/05
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth,
Kieran Mansley <=
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Kieran Mansley, 2009/03/06
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Francois Bouchard, 2009/03/06
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, address@hidden, 2009/03/06
Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05
Re: Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05
Re: Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05
Re: Re: Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05