Why 1 second RTO lower bound is missing in RFC 6298 Linux kernel implementation

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












0















I was going through the implementation of RFC 6298. Then i found a statement as follows.




Whenever RTO is computed, if it is less than 1 second, then the RTO
SHOULD be rounded up to 1 second.




But this part i was not able to find in the code. There is on TCP_RTO_MIN constant which is declared as HZ/5 (200 ms). This 200 ms is the current lower bound of the RTO. Any body can explain this?










share|improve this question




























    0















    I was going through the implementation of RFC 6298. Then i found a statement as follows.




    Whenever RTO is computed, if it is less than 1 second, then the RTO
    SHOULD be rounded up to 1 second.




    But this part i was not able to find in the code. There is on TCP_RTO_MIN constant which is declared as HZ/5 (200 ms). This 200 ms is the current lower bound of the RTO. Any body can explain this?










    share|improve this question


























      0












      0








      0


      1






      I was going through the implementation of RFC 6298. Then i found a statement as follows.




      Whenever RTO is computed, if it is less than 1 second, then the RTO
      SHOULD be rounded up to 1 second.




      But this part i was not able to find in the code. There is on TCP_RTO_MIN constant which is declared as HZ/5 (200 ms). This 200 ms is the current lower bound of the RTO. Any body can explain this?










      share|improve this question
















      I was going through the implementation of RFC 6298. Then i found a statement as follows.




      Whenever RTO is computed, if it is less than 1 second, then the RTO
      SHOULD be rounded up to 1 second.




      But this part i was not able to find in the code. There is on TCP_RTO_MIN constant which is declared as HZ/5 (200 ms). This 200 ms is the current lower bound of the RTO. Any body can explain this?







      tcp






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jan 29 at 3:34







      Midhun P

















      asked Jan 29 at 3:29









      Midhun PMidhun P

      12




      12




















          0






          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497341%2fwhy-1-second-rto-lower-bound-is-missing-in-rfc-6298-linux-kernel-implementation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          0






          active

          oldest

          votes








          0






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497341%2fwhy-1-second-rto-lower-bound-is-missing-in-rfc-6298-linux-kernel-implementation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown






          Popular posts from this blog

          Peggy Mitchell

          Palaiologos

          The Forum (Inglewood, California)