From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 12 05:44:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B82A74; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:44:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2251B362; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-67-180-208-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.208.218]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6A8C1A3C1A; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:44:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5119D6AB.1060603@mu.org> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:44:11 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Oppermann Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new TCP_IGNOREIDLE socket option References: <201301221511.02496.jhb@freebsd.org> <50FF06AD.402@networx.ch> <061B4EA5-6A93-48A0-A269-C2C3A3C7E77C@lakerest.net> <201302060746.43736.jhb@freebsd.org> <511292C9.4040307@mu.org> <51166019.9040104@mu.org> <5118D1B5.9070409@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5118D1B5.9070409@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Randall Stewart , John Baldwin , net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:44:22 -0000 On 2/11/13 3:10 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 09.02.2013 15:41, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> However, the end result must be far different than what has occurred >> so far. >> >> If the code was deemed unacceptable for general inclusion, then we >> must find a way to provide a >> light framework to accomplish the needs of the community member. > > We've got pluggable congestion control modules thanks to lstewart. > > You can implement any non-standard congestion control method by adding > your own module. They can be compiled into the kernel or loaded as KLD. > > I consider implementing this as a CC module the correct approach instead > of adding yet another sysctl. Doing a CC module like this is very easy. > That sounds like a win. -Alfred