Computing: Networking / Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

context[edit]

can someone give this option some context and elaborate on the purpose and effects this option has?

--MauriceKA 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have answered this. BruceBarnett (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Router at level 4 in the OSI model?[edit]

I do not understand why a router would interfere with a TCP option. A router is working at layer 3 only, TCP is layer 4. May be NAT, or a statefull firewall could generate problems. --Mircea.Vutcovici 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Utopia, a router would not do anything at all about it, indeed -- consider an ISP's set of routers, they might try to be smart about their users' choices, perhaps to even out bandwidth loads. It is indeed a question of definition as to what a router is, but most people would not say that a router would even be able to mess up TCP flags, but some do, an claim to be routers, and are widely recognized as such, therefore they are - at least in my opinion - correctly referred to as routers. --80.217.189.62 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It chooses the good value of the option by default." - That sounds like gobbledygook to me, can someone please rephrase? 84.202.177.111 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong anyway :) 2.6.8 had scaling enabled, which created problems with broken routers, thus some later version (sorry, don't know right now which one, but the corresponding patch is from 2004-07-06) sets the scaling factor to a sensible default: Just large enough so that the maximum TCP window (3rd value in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rmem) can be sent (so if that value is 128K, the scaling factor is set to 1 (as 64K*2^1 = 128K) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible side affects overblown[edit]

Giving such prominent to broken consumer-grade broadband routers performs a disservice to non-technical user. Note that citation 1 is simply a special case of the problem described in citation 2. Also, any device that properly implements the required portions of the TCP RFC's won't have an issue with tcp window scaling.

I suggest either deleting this section or replacing it with text such as:

TCP implementations supporting the window scale option are compatible with TCP implementations which do not support the window scale option. However, there have been reports of cases where some devices, usually consumer grade home routers or firewalls, interact poorly with the TCP window scale option [1] [2]. In such circumstances, one can either fix the broken router or disable the TCP window scaling option on the computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.225.209 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TCP window scale option. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080101144824/http://msdn2.microsoft.com:80/en-us/library/ms819736.aspx to http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms819736.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]