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 - : 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
