Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

[John Heffner]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:42 +0100
> Daniele Lacamera <mlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html