From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Re: high latency with TCP connections Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060918.003938.26278728.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060830100734.GA22235@isil.ipib.msu.ru> <20060904160045.GA15599@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <44FDBA04.3080104@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, alex@sectorb.msk.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:39870 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567AbWIRHjj (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:39:39 -0400 To: rick.jones2@hp.com In-Reply-To: <44FDBA04.3080104@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Rick Jones Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:55:16 -0700 > Is this really necessary? I thought that the problems with ABC were in > trying to apply byte-based heuristics from the RFC(s) to a > packet-oritented cwnd in the stack? This is receiver side, and helps a sender who does congestion control based upon packet counting like Linux does. It really is less related to ABC than Alexey implies, we've always had this kind of problem as I mentioned in previous talks in the past on this issue.