Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:39:43 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Cc: Tom Jones <jones@sdf.org>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Patches for RFC6937 and draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-00 Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokSzvGyUnSkakrgxizQ1xXOMQgzrXKQMTUuFAZOMG0W=g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <76D986F7-72A8-4ABE-8731-064C6C77A56F@netapp.com> References: <259C9434-C6FE-42EA-823D-ECB024DBF3D7@netapp.com> <B7145157-9A03-4053-BFCC-627633E20122@neville-neil.com> <814E0886-1B6B-4316-8BAB-684DAFDE1983@netapp.com> <20140826145517.GD12732@gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmo=TsqAKUrV3BRAk1bX9E1zKq7j5og5CHv4PEz-9sqXpAA@mail.gmail.com> <76D986F7-72A8-4ABE-8731-064C6C77A56F@netapp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is there a PR for it? -a On 27 August 2014 00:23, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote: > It would be great if people could also review Aris' PRR patch - RFC6937 h= as been out for a while. > > Lars > > > > > On 2014-8-26, at 20:09, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I'm going to merge Tom's work in a week unless someone gives me a >> really good reason not to. >> >> I think there's been enough work and discussion about it since the >> first post from Lars in Feburary and enough review opportunity. >> >> >> -a >> >> >> On 26 August 2014 07:55, Tom Jones <jones@sdf.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:43:49PM +0000, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> the newcwv patch is probably stale now with Tom Jones' recent patch ba= sed on >>>> a more up-to-date version of the Internet-Draft, but the PRR patch sho= uld >>>> still be useful? >>> >>> My newcwv patch is much more up to date than Aris's, but it is slightly >>> different in implementation. I have had a few suggestions from Adrian, = but he >>> couldn't comment on how it relates to the tcp internals. >>> >>> There is a PR: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1915= 20 >>> >>> The biggest difference in structure between mine and Aris's patch is th= e use of >>> tcp timers. It would be good to hear if my approach or Aris's is prefer= ed. >>> >>>> On 2014-6-19, at 23:35, George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> wro= te: >>>> >>>>> On 4 Feb 2014, at 1:38, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> below are two patches that implement RFC6937 ("Proportional Rate Red= uction for TCP") and draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-00 ("Updating TCP to support Ra= te-Limited Traffic"). They were done by Aris Angelogiannopoulos for his MS = thesis, which is at https://eggert.org/students/angelogiannopoulos-thesis.p= df. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patches should apply to -CURRENT as of Sep 17, 2013. (Sorry for = the delay in sending them, we'd been trying to get some feedback from commi= tters first, without luck.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that newcwv is still a work in progress in the IETF, and= the patch has some limitations with regards to the "pipeACK Sampling Perio= d" mentioned in the Internet-Draft. Aris says this in his thesis about what= exactly he implemented: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The second implementation choice, is in regards with the measuremen= t of pipeACK. This variable is the most important introduced by the method = and is used to compute the phase that the sender currently lies in. In orde= r to compute pipeACK the approach suggested by the Internet Draft (ID) is f= ollowed [ncwv]. During initialization, pipeACK is set to the maximum possib= le value. A helper variable prevHighACK is introduced that is initialized t= o the initial sequence number (iss). prevHighACK holds the value of the hig= hest acknowledged byte so far. pipeACK is measured once per RTT meaning tha= t when an ACK covering prevHighACK is received, pipeACK becomes the differe= nce between the current ACK and prevHighACK. This is called a pipeACK sampl= e. A newer version of the draft suggests that multiple pipeACK samples can= be used during the pipeACK sampling period." >>>>>> >>>>>> Lars >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [prr.patch] >>>>>> >>>>>> [newcwv.patch] >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for not looking at this as yet. It is now closer to the to= p of my list. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> George >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tom >>> @adventureloop >>> adventurist.me >>> >>> :wq >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokSzvGyUnSkakrgxizQ1xXOMQgzrXKQMTUuFAZOMG0W=g>