Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) | From | John Heffner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal |
| |
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:42 +0100 > Daniele Lacamera <mlists@danielinux.net> wrote: > > > One last note: IMHO we really need a better way to select congestion > > avoidance scheme between those available, instead of switching each one > > on and off. I.e., we can't say how vegas and westwood perform when > > switched on together, can we? > > The protocol choices are mutually exclusive, if you walk through the code > (or do experiments), you find that that only one gets used. As part of the > longer term plan, I would like to: > - have one sysctl > - choice by route and destination > - union for fields in control block > > > Is there interest in setting up a semi official "-tcp" tree to hold these? > because it might not be of wide interest or stability to be ready for mainline > kernel.
An idea I've been toying with for a while now is completely abstracting congestion control. Then you could have congestion control loadable modules, which would avoid this mess of experimental algorithms inside the main-line kernel. If done right, they might be able to work seamlessly with SCTP, too. The tricky part is making sure the interface is complete enough.
-John - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |