Putting on my Sally hat: David Miller wrote:
Eddie, this is an interesting idea, but would you be amicable to the suggestion I made in another email? Basically if RTT is extremely low, don't do any of this limiting. What sense is there to doing any of this for very low RTTs? It is a very honest question. If we hit some congestion in a switch on the local network, responding to that signal is pointless because the congestion event will pass before we even get the feedback showing us that there was congestion in the first place.
An idea like this is definitely worth exploring. Of course it would be a change to congestion control and would have to be treated as such. it wouldn't be CCID3, or TCP-friendly, since TCP is (according to research & such) responding to the RTT, due to ack clocking. You'd have to worry about perhaps rare, but absolutely possible, cases such as persistent LAN congestion. (Maybe a local wireless LAN?)
I wonder in Gerrit's RTT experiments what a TCP connection would achieve, and how that would correspond to the TCP throughput equation.
Eddie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
