Re: [PATCH] [DCCP]: Use higher timeout value for nofeedback timer

[Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

Quoting Mark Handley:
|  I agree that running a very small no-feedback timer is a bad idea.
|  But I think that 1 second is probably far too large.  The purpose of
|  the nofeedback timer is to slow DCCP down when there is serious
|  network congestion.  Waiting 1 second on a LAN would mean sending for
|  thousands of RTTs before starting to slow down.  And on wide-area
|  links in places like the UK, it could be 100 RTTs before you slow
|  down, although this would be mitigated a little if the problem was
|  congestion, and a queue built up.
|  
|  My gut feeling is that there should be a lower bound on the nofeedback
|  timer, but that 100ms would be a more appropriate value.  This is
|  motivated by an attempt to compromise between a large value for
|  efficient DCCP implementations, and a small value to avoid disrupting
|  the network for too long when bad stuff is happening.  From a human
|  usability point of view, you probably can cope with dropouts in audio
|  of 100ms without it being too bad, but 1 second is too long.
Thanks a lot for this feedback. I will change the patch once again so that the
configuration option scales in units of 100 milliseconds - that will give users
a chance to test at different granularity:
	* 0 means use RFC 3448 as before
	* 1 means 100 milliseconds
	* 10 corresponds to the TCP timeout of 1 sec
	* ...

Gerrit