Leandro, | > include/net/tcp.h | 12 +++--------- | > net/dccp/ccids/ccid2.c | 9 +++++++++ | David's change only affects CCID-2, CCID-3/4 remain unaffected, they use rfc3390_initial_rate() (which does almost the same). | I don't think this change will make sense for DCCP, once IW10 is | for the cases of short-lived flows. DCCP is used on scenarios for | multimedia flows, which are, in general, long-lived flows. So, IMO the | way how we calculate IW for DCCP is appropriate, at least considering | a quick answer. I agree with you, and also vote to eventually bring CCID-2 on a par with the state of art in TCP. Before we can do this, the CCID-2 implementation needs some work (as per separate thread with Samuel Jero). | In fact, nowadays we need better congestion control algorithms for DCCP, | and in this sense we are working on adapt TCP Cubic for DCCP as a CCID, | and also we started some work to make DCCP support TCP pluggable | mechanism , which will allow us to use TCP congestion control | algorithms in DCCP. This is very good news and am very much looking forward to the new approach. | DCCP should calculate its IW as specified in RFC3390 rather than set | it to IW10. For the moment, I understand that for DCCP, we have to | discuss more about this in a separated thread. Agree that we should keep an eye on this - perhaps too early to turn it into a should. Networking speeds are growing, and many of the simulations were based on TCP Reno which stems from the 10 Mbit ethernet era. -- 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
