From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200111271956.TAA08841@localhost.localdomain>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:39:32 +0100."
             <03aa01c17751$54599d60$b6f7c6d4@cybercable.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:56:52 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2bca2a08-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Boyd:
> Yes that is too simplistic.  Potentially you have large N protocol
> rules and some of those protocols do not behave in ways you can
> predict or monitor without carrying around a huge amount of baggage.

All true. I was thinking more of just nailing the ones that happen
to cause the most hassle and ignoring the rest, including when you
get those protocols on other ports. Very little work, easily
configurable. Whether it would have any effect is a different matter.