🚀 go-pugleaf

John Navas wrote:
> 
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
> 
> In <3A7D7783.1DB96D8C@home.com>, James Knott
> <the.lights.are.on.but.no.one.is@home.com> wrote:
> 
> >John Navas wrote:
> >>
> >> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
> >>
> >> In <3A7C6810.E737A367@home.com>, James Knott
> >> <the.lights.are.on.but.no.one.is@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Here's what it says in "Internetworking with TCP/IP vol 1,
> >> >Douglas Commer (1991). pg 176.
> >> >
> >> >"Technically, the number of packets that can be
> >> >unacknowledged at any given time is constrained by the
> >> >window size and is limited to a small fixed number.  For
> >> >example, in a sliding widnow protocol with a window size 8,
> >> >the sender is permitted to transmit 8 packets before it
> >> >receives an acknowledgement.
> >>
> >> Yikes!  In TCP/IP, the Receive Window is always a matter of bytes
> >> (octets in RFCspeak), not packets.  See RFC 793 "Transmission Control
> >> Protocol" (TCP):
> >
> >I guess you didn't read the rest of my message, where I said
> >that later in that chapter he explained about how TCP/IP
> >didn't use packet numbers.  He was just using a simplified
> >example in the text I quoted.
> 
> Actually, I did.  It's not simplified; it's wrong.
> 
> I guess you didn't read the rest of my message:

Here's what he says a few pages later.

"The TCP sliding window mechanism operates at the octet
level, not at the segment or packet level.  Octets of the
data stream are mumbered sequentially, and a sender keeps
three pointers..."

-- 
Replies sent via e-mail to this address will be promptly
ignored.
To reply, replace everything to the left of "@" with
"james.knott".