RFC 6928: Increasing TCP's Initial Window
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document proposes an experiment to increase the permitted TCP initial window (IW) from between 2 and 4 segments, as specified in RFC 3390, to 10 segments with a fallback to the existing recommendation when performance issues are detected. It discusses the motivation behind the increase, the advantages and disadvantages of the higher initial window, and presents results from several large-scale experiments showing that the higher initial window improves the overall performance of many web services without resulting in a congestion collapse. The document closes with a discussion of usage and deployment for further experimental purposes recommended by the IETF TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6928
- Published
- April 2013
- Authors
- J. Chu; N. Dukkipati; Y. Cheng; M. Mathis
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- wit
- Pages
- 24
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6937Proportional Rate Reduction for TCPObsoleted
May 2013
- RFC 6951UDP Encapsulation of Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host to End-Host CommunicationUpdated
May 2013
- RFC 6904Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)Current
April 2013
- RFC 6994Shared Use of Experimental TCP OptionsCurrent
August 2013
- RFC 7007Update to Remove DVI4 from the Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)Current
August 2013
- RFC 7022Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names (CNAMEs)Current
September 2013
- RFC 7053SACK-IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission ProtocolObsoleted
November 2013
- RFC 6792Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring FrameworkCurrent
November 2012
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?