Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

[Baruch Even]

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

I'm currently working on a patch to make it a single sysctl, I've got it 
working (as in, the kernel doesn't crash). I still need to validate the 
actual implementation.

I'd say the next stage is to merge fields as much as possible.

I doubt the real use of selection by route/dest, all of the high-speed 
protocols (except possibly for TCP-Hybla) are intended for sender-only 
servers who push lots of data and should work in all cases and alongside 
 Reno TCP traffic without undue unfairness.

I hope to finish the clean-up and preparation of H-TCP for inclusion in 
the kernel and can then help with the unionisation.

Baruch
-
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