Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:37:51 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new TCP_IGNOREIDLE socket option Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=hi_i=JfF7i1fT%2B8Yh%2BPxqwFNq3sOqnHhfnoLCN1iMkg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <511B6A87.5060000@freebsd.org> References: <201301221511.02496.jhb@freebsd.org> <511B4DEF.8000500@freebsd.org> <511B6A87.5060000@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 February 2013 02:27, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> wrote: > Again I'd like to point out that this sort of modification should > be implemented as a congestion control module. All the hook points > are already there and can readily be used instead of adding more special > cases to the generic part of TCP. The CC algorithm can be selected per > socket. For such a special CC module it'd get a nice fat warning that > it is not suitable for Internet use. > > Additionally I speculate that for the use-case of John he may also be > willing to forgo congestion avoidance and always operate in (ill-named) > "slow start" mode. With a special CC module this can easily be tweaked. There are some cute things that could be done here - eg, having an L3 route table entry map to a congestion control (like having an MSS in the L3 entry too.) But I'd love to see some modelling / data showing competing congestion control algorithms on the same set of congested pipes. Doubly so on multiple congested pipes (ie, modelling a handful of parallel user<->last-mile<->IX<->various transit feeds with different levels of congestion/RTT<->IX<->last mile<->user connections.) You all know much more about this than I do. :-) Thanks, Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=hi_i=JfF7i1fT%2B8Yh%2BPxqwFNq3sOqnHhfnoLCN1iMkg>