From: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: dccp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] [DCCP]: Introduce two new socket options
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:28:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200609221828.02122@strip-the-willow> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200609221430.14555.ian.mcdonald@jandi.co.nz>
Hi Eddie,
| The "intended average packet size", a congestion control parameter used by
| CCID 3 and CCID 4, is different from the actually _observed_ packet size. I
| could see how an explicit setting for this congestion control parameter might
| be useful in addition to the information communicated by 'len' and incoming
| packet sizes.
|
| CCID 3, for example, says that 's' MAY be calculated from a running average,
| OR from the maximum segment size. I think an option like
| DCCP_SOCKOPT_TX_PACKET_SIZE, by which the app can declare an intended average
| packet size, is also acceptable.
It is acceptable but not useful. The kernel module already has the information
available to derive `s' in either way:
* it knows the maximum segment size (which a user would have to retrieve via another
socket option call)
* it has information about packet header lengths and option lengths
* it can track the average of past payload lengths
Why burden the application programmer to handcode an estimation of the average each
time? I can not see a justification for this, certainly not for CCIDs which
are intended to be used with (on average) fixed packet sizes.
I think that a priority is to keep the user programming interface as simple as
possible -- like UDP's interface, as stated in RFC 4340.
| > In summary, I think it would be better to let the sender/receiver determine the
| > packet size from already available data. That is, derive s from the `len' of dccp_sendmsg(),
| > and use a weighted-average mechanism like
| > s = q * len + (1-q) * s
| > to smooth out variations: in accordance with draft-floyd-rfc3448bis-00.
|
| This would be fine with me, and perhaps even preferable in terms of the
| programming API. But the drafts I think would allow the socket option, so if
| it's needed now, why not?
To encourage programmers to use DCCP by providing a simple-to-use programming API with a minimal
set of required options to program into the application code.
Gerrit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-22 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-22 2:30 [PATCH 5/7] [DCCP]: Introduce two new socket options Ian McDonald
2006-09-22 10:37 ` Gerrit Renker
2006-09-22 16:56 ` Eddie Kohler
2006-09-22 17:28 ` Gerrit Renker [this message]
2006-09-22 17:35 ` Eddie Kohler
2006-09-22 17:49 ` Gerrit Renker
2006-11-16 13:57 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2006-11-16 14:07 ` Gerrit Renker
2006-11-16 14:09 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200609221828.02122@strip-the-willow \
--to=gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk \
--cc=dccp@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox