--- tcp_input.c.original	Sun Jun  1 22:35:04 1997
+++ tcp_input.c	Sun Jun  1 22:51:58 1997
@@ -1282,7 +1282,23 @@
 						tp->snd_nxt = onxt;
 					goto drop;
 				} else if (tp->t_dupacks > tcprexmtthresh) {
-					tp->snd_cwnd += tp->t_maxseg;
+
+				       /*
+				        * tp->snd_cwnd += tp->t_maxseg;
+					*
+					* Above line replaced by following
+					* piece of code as part of the proposed
+					* modification to limit cwnd inflation.
+				        * The new piece of code increments cwnd
+					* as in normal congestion avoidance. It
+					* also checks cwnd against TCP_MAXWIN.
+					*
+					*/
+				  
+				       tp->snd_cwnd = min(tp->snd_cwnd
+					    + (tp->t_maxseg * tp->t_maxseg
+					       / tp->snd_cwnd)
+					     , TCP_MAXWIN<<tp->snd_scale);
 					(void) tcp_output(tp);
 					goto drop;
 				}
@@ -1293,10 +1309,21 @@
 		/*
 		 * If the congestion window was inflated to account
 		 * for the other side's cached packets, retract it.
+		 *
+		 *  if (tp->t_dupacks >= tcprexmtthresh &&
+		 *     tp->snd_cwnd > tp->snd_ssthresh)
+		 *	   tp->snd_cwnd = tp->snd_ssthresh;
+                 *
+		 * Above if-statement remarked out as part of the proposed
+		 * modification to limit cwnd inflation.
+		 * Note that this if-statement can be left in if you want to
+		 * limit the size of the burst of back-to-back segments that
+		 * occurs when the non-duplicate ACK arrives. But doing this
+		 * will make the TCP source slightly less agressive (i.e. it
+		 * will be well-behaved ! ).
+		 *
 		 */
-		if (tp->t_dupacks >= tcprexmtthresh &&
-		    tp->snd_cwnd > tp->snd_ssthresh)
-			tp->snd_cwnd = tp->snd_ssthresh;
+			   
 		tp->t_dupacks = 0;
 		if (SEQ_GT(ti->ti_ack, tp->snd_max)) {
 			tcpstat.tcps_rcvacktoomuch++;