From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerrit Renker Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:34:36 +0000 Subject: RFD: Ack Vectors Message-Id: <200707300934.36798@strip-the-willow> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org | * the spec and the code allow to have different CCIDs for forward and return path; | * this is foremost a theoretical thing - it is like having e.g. TCP Reno for the data and | TCP Hybla for the Acks that come back; | * but the practical implementation causes no end of headaches: | - With regard to Ian's suggestion, Ack Vectors must be enabled if at least one CCID is CCID2. | - If CCID2 talks to CCID3 then CCID2 will want to have its Ack Vectors from the CCID3 peer. | However, there is no CCID3 code to support Ack Vectors at the moment (and in the spec this | is only implicit). | - If CCID3 talks to CCID2 then CCID3 will want its X_recv and loss rate from the CCID2 peer. | But how? CCID2 doesn't know these things. The above is not correct, so please forget it. Furthermore, code which assumes that TX/RX CCID are always the same is ugly and will sooner or later break, so it is also not an option. With regard to the Ack Vectors, my suggestion however is * to remove the sysctl - it is confusing; * to make the use of Ack Vectors dependent on the current RX CCID; * the TX CCID need not be considered for the Ack Vector allocation, since the `Send Ack Vector' feature is server-priority (RFC 4340, 6.4) and thus negotiated by the side which has the RX CCID; * optional and for debugging: disabling of Ack Vectors in the Kconfig menu.