Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!servo.qualcomm.com!karn From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: [386BSD] Message-ID: <1992Sep13.061916.27672@qualcomm.com> Sender: news@qualcomm.com Nntp-Posting-Host: servo.qualcomm.com Organization: Qualcomm, Inc References: <4ebZONa00WB3Qzp15W@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Aug29.163711.25695@NeoSoft.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:19:16 GMT Lines: 22 In article <1992Aug29.163711.25695@NeoSoft.com> karl@NeoSoft.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >Unless you want to do ham packet radio stuff, the Berkeley TCP/IP and SLIP >implementations that come with 386BSD are superior to KA9Q, which was >designed for non-multitasking DOS operation and, thus, incurs some serious >penalties when running under Unix. Ahem. Although I agree that my stuff isn't designed to run efficiently under UNIX, I beg to differ about the "quality" of the implementation. I've long had all the same stuff in my TCP/IP and SLIP that Berkeley has: VJ header compression, VJ srtt/mdev rto calculation, clamped retransmission backoffs, slow start, fast recovery, Nagle tinygram avoidance, etc. It's fast enough to never be the bottleneck on a FTP (as opposed to the wire or the disk.) And it has avoided many of the problems that still nag the descendants of some previous Berkeley TCPs, like closing all TCP connections to a given host whenever you receive ANY ICMP message that references that host... Phil