From: rick.jones2@hp.com   
      
   Martijn Lievaart  wrote:   
   > I was confused with normal retransmissons, my bad. Funny that my   
   > Ubuntu 12.04 with kernel 3.2.0-24 gives a different result:   
      
   > Capturing on wlan0   
   >   0.000000   10.0.1.239 -> 1.2.3.4      TCP 74 41994 > telnet [SYN] Seq=0   
   > Win=14600 Len=0 MSS=1460 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=4167919 TSecr=0 WS=128   
   >   0.997676   10.0.1.239 -> 1.2.3.4      TCP 74 41994 > telnet [SYN] Seq=0   
   > Win=14600 Len=0 MSS=1460 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=4168169 TSecr=0 WS=128   
   >   3.001680   10.0.1.239 -> 1.2.3.4      TCP 74 41994 > telnet [SYN] Seq=0   
   > Win=14600 Len=0 MSS=1460 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=4168670 TSecr=0 WS=128   
   >   7.009669   10.0.1.239 -> 1.2.3.4      TCP 74 41994 > telnet [SYN] Seq=0   
   > Win=14600 Len=0 MSS=1460 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=4169672 TSecr=0 WS=128   
      
   Well, the kernel can change between 2.6.38 and 3.2 :) And I seem to   
   recall some discussion in the netdev list about shortening the initial   
   retransmission timeout.   
      
   > But your original thought was correct, my bad.   
      
   No worries.   
      
   rick jones   
   wonders if we should be encouraging folks to set net.ipv4.tcp_ecn to one now...   
   --   
   I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of   
   "when," sometimes "where;" always "how much."  - Joubert   
   these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)   
   feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)