Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal

Baruch Even
2005-02-22T20:16:47Z

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:42 +0100
> Daniele Lacamera <mlists@danielinux.net> wrote:
>>One last note: IMHO we really need a better way to select congestion
>>avoidance scheme between those available, instead of switching each one
>>on and off. I.e., we can't say how vegas and westwood perform when
>>switched on together, can we?
>
> The protocol choices are mutually exclusive, if you walk through the code
> (or do experiments), you find that that only one gets used. As part of the
> longer term plan, I would like to:
> - have one sysctl
> - choice by route and destination
> - union for fields in control block

I'm currently working on a patch to make it a single sysctl, I've got it
working (as in, the kernel doesn't crash). I still need to validate the
actual implementation.

I'd say the next stage is to merge fields as much as possible.

I doubt the real use of selection by route/dest, all of the high-speed
protocols (except possibly for TCP-Hybla) are intended for sender-only
servers who push lots of data and should work in all cases and alongside
Reno TCP traffic without undue unfairness.

I hope to finish the clean-up and preparation of H-TCP for inclusion in
the kernel and can then help with the unionisation.

Baruch