From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add TCPCONG target to patch-o-matic Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:12:10 +0200 Message-ID: <452A66CA.70603@trash.net> References: <45235EDC.4080709@aarnet.edu.au> <4524118B.4020903@netfilter.org> <4524BBB2.2000109@aarnet.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist Return-path: To: Glen Turner In-Reply-To: <4524BBB2.2000109@aarnet.edu.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Glen Turner wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I have created a kernel module and iptables shared library > to allow netfilter to set the TCP congestion control > algorithm. > > This has three major uses: selecting differing algorithms > for wired and non-wired interfaces; selecting differing > algorithms for close and far hosts; and selecting differing > algorithms for comparison testing. > > Thanks to the hint from Pablo Neira Ayuso I have put this > into the patch-o-matic format. This has been tested against > iptables-1.3.6 and linux-2.6.18. > > A SVN diff against patch-o-matic follows, which I'm hoping > Thunderbird doesn't mangle. Since I'm not familiar with SVN > please let me know if this isn't the desired patch format. > > I would hope that this facility can become a standard part of > the kernel and iptables. Please let me know what I need to > do to follow that path. I don't think iptables is the right place to do this. It should be controllable through routing IMO (which can already control some aspects of congestion control).