RE: [LARTC] SFQ buckets/extensions

[Martin Devera <devik@cdi.cz>]

> that quite possible ... The only way to equalize bandwidth "fairly" in
> these scenarios still seems to be to implement the hierarchial approach
> of hashing against destination IP (the user receiving the packets) and

exactly. The discussion should be about how to implement if
efficiently. What about to have N IP buckets and N IP/PORT
buckets. When IP/PORT hash resolves to bucket then we could (re)link the
IP/PORT bucket to IP bucket's DRR list.
During colision (two different IP but the same IP/PORT hash) the
while bucket would be stolen from original IP and moved to new.
It is bad but it is why we call it Stochastic ;)

It would be fast with bounded memory usage ...

Just my opinion ..
devik

> > 	People wanted options to tune hashsize/limits/depths and
> > the most wanted (needed) was the option to select hash type.
> > SRC/DST Port hash is in TODO now.
>
> And I'm glad it exists for testing at least.
> --
> Michael T. Babcock
> CTO, FibreSpeed Ltd.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>
>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/