Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:16:22 -0700
From:      bmah@cisco.com (Bruce A. Mah)
To:        Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc:        bmah@cisco.com, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_output.c 
Message-ID:  <200008042216.e74MGMk14703@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <200008042131.RAA33779@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> 
References:  <200008042014.QAA05452@cholla.INRS-Telecom.UQuebec.CA> <200008042107.e74L7Tu13995@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> <200008042131.RAA33779@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-2095522332P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

If memory serves me right, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <<On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:07:29 -0700, bmah@cisco.com (Bruce A. Mah) said:
> 
> > A RED queue would drop a random packet from the full queue.
> 
> Actually, no.  A RED queue would drop a packet as it is enqueued, at
> random intervals which depend on the current length of the queue.
> Many people get this wrong when the idea is first explained to them; I
> know I did.  Read the paper for a full explanation of how this works.[1]

Mea culpa, thanks for the correction.  It's been too long since I read
the paper.

If it makes you feel any better, I have *nothing* to do whatsoever with
the RED implementation in any Cisco product.  :-p

> > If you can get those flows to back off (e.g. TCP congestion
> > control),
> 
> Specifically, I think the problem with Archie's patch is that it might
> result in TCP not backing off at all. 

I think I see your concern but I am not sure whether or not this is
true.  Given that I started off my previous email with a totally false 
statement, I'm not sure if I should venture out on a limb again, but:

From the commit log, the error case Archie is concerned with is if
ip_output returns with ENOBUFS.  If this is true, then after Archie's
patch gets executed, the code below the out: label will call
tcp_quench(), which closes the congestion window down to one segment.
The fact that the patch already reset tp->snd_nxt doesn't change that.

> RED doesn't deal well with
> unresponsive flows.

Agreed.

Bruce.




--==_Exmh_-2095522332P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
MessageID: HuZKOCkYKe88R65elv+ql4bPbwEyn4xc

iQA/AwUBOYtAttjKMXFboFLDEQJlkwCfTiMVV4cCrBWxlUDLG+vtRwHq1yoAoJAb
wbp/u8hqqDGPdcSbe8NpXDhQ
=d0l+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_-2095522332P--


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200008042216.e74MGMk14703>